Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that Porsche Cars North America, Inc., was not liable to a driver allegedly injured when his car’s cooling system cracked and he inhaled antifreeze vapors while driving to a dealership for assistance.

Joseph Riad purchased a 2004 Porsche Cayenne Turbo. While he was on the road, the pipes in the car’s cooling system cracked, which caused antifreeze to leak and vaporize. Riad inhaled fumes while he drove to a Porsche dealership for assistance, and he later began to struggle with a respiratory condition. This led to a diagnosis of asthma.

Riad sued Porsche Cars North America, Inc., alleging strict liability design defect and negligent failure to warn. The defendant moved for summary judgment.

Granting the motion, the court noted that the plaintiff must prove a causal connection between the antifreeze fumes entering the interior of his vehicle and his respiratory injuries. Citing case law, the court also found that questions regarding cause of injury are beyond a layperson’s knowledge, necessitating expert medical testimony to show that an injury did, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, result from the allegedly negligent act. Here, the court found, the plaintiff expert’s report and deposition testimony did not meet the reasonable certainty burden of proof. The expert’s report concluded that the inhalation of toxic substances likely led to Riad’s development of pulmonary disease, but the expert was unable to reach a conclusion on causation with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the court reasoned. Under relevant case law, the court added, it is not enough for an expert to opine about possibilities.

Consequently, the court concluded that because Riad had not offered admissible evidence of medical causation, summary judgment for the defense was warranted.

Citation: Riad v. Porsche Cars N. Am., 2024 WL 3606315 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2024).