This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was injured when a 1988 Toyota pickup truck that he was driving crossed the center line of the road and collided head-on with a vehicle that was traveling in the opposite direction. Ps sued Ds claiming that P's injuries were enhanced beyond those he would have received had the truck he was driving been more crashworthy. Ps specifically contend that the seatbelt system of the Toyota pickup truck was defective. Ds answered the complaint, maintaining that there were no defects in the truck. Ds also asserted the affirmative defense of comparative fault. Ps filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which they sought to have the U.S. District Court dismiss Ds' affirmative defenses, including the defense of comparative fault. It granted Ps' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed all of Ds' affirmative defenses, including the defense of comparative fault. With respect to the defense of comparative fault, the district court stated that '... the Court will not charge comparative fault in this case. It will abide by its earlier decisions that the comparative fault defense is not applicable to an action based on strict liability in tort.' Ds then filed a motion in the district court in which they sought an interlocutory appeal on the comparative fault issue. The court granted the motion for an interlocutory appeal. The district court then certified to this Court the questions listed above.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.