Minnesota Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Severely Injured Boy in Suit Involving Car Seat Laws

6/23/2007

A young boy severely brain injured in a car accident five years ago won a victory against his family’s insurance company when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today in his favor. The unusual lawsuit – filed on behalf of the child by his grandmother – appeared to pit the now- eight-year-old Teddy Harrison against his own parents for any negligence in properly strapping the then-three-year old child into his car seat. However, the parties had actually reached an agreement on all of the fact issues needed to decide this case. The sole issue in dispute in the lawsuit was a legal one: whether the Harrisons could even mention the child car seat or seat belts if the case were to go to trial.

The legal dispute arose out of legislation that has been on the books since the ‘60s. Back then, the legislature passed a law that forbids any introduction of evidence as to whether or not a person was using either a seat belt or a childcare seat in any lawsuit for personal injuries. The only exception to that rule was in actions where the claim was against the manufacturer for a defective car seat or seat belt. This law generally became known as "the seat belt gag law."

The Harrison’s case against the manufacturer was settled out of court. Only the case against the child’s parents and, in effect, their auto insurance, remained. If the Harrisons were precluded from even mentioning the car seat use, they would be precluded from submitting the evidence necessary to support the claim. In fact, the parents’ insurance company agreed that the full limit of its policy was owed if the state’s "gag law" did not apply, but refused to pay the policy limits if the court ruled that no mention could be made of the car seat use or seat belts in the case. Whether or not the insurance company had to pay the policy limit turned on whether the court would allow evidence relating to the child car seat to be admitted in this case. The high court’s ruling that testimony relating to the car seat and seal belt use would be proper in this instance requires Harrison’s insurance company to honor the terms of its insurance policy. The insurance proceeds will go toward maximizing the long-term life care of the Harrison boy.

"The lawsuit was ultimately about holding insurance companies responsible in personal injury cases. That’s what Teddy’s parents – and everyone else who pays an insurance premium – expect when there is a catastrophic injury in an accident," says Robert King, an attorney for Teddy Harrison, practicing at Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P.A . "A poorly designed child restraint system and a careless, reckless driver who hit the Harrison’s car were the cause of Teddy’s terrible injuries. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the auto insurance proceeds the family will receive will be used to help Teddy continue to live in a happy, safe environment where he is well taken care of. He has the support of a loving family, with parents doing everything they can to assure Teddy a long, healthy life."

"This case was a test of the gag rule," King continues. "Although it’s a highly unusual case, the only sound strategic legal recourse the family had was the one they pursued in order to ensure funds to provide the best quality of life for their child. Teddy Harrison will require a tremendous amount of care throughout his life at a great cost."

We are pleased with the favorable ruling in this unusual case. It is a ruling that may prompt the legislature to revisit the antiquated gag rule, which goes back to the early ‘60s," explains Kay Nord Hunt, the Lommen Abdo attorney who argued the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. "The anomaly here is that the Teddy Harrison case is one of the few situations where if someone is negligent, they will not be held liable simply because the evidence rules forbid you from even mentioning a key component of the claim. The court was able to address this legal hurdle – recognizing that the case was indeed an exception to the gag rule. It follows that the Harrison’s auto insurance company must now to pay its limits to Teddy Harrison."

Details of the Case

• Harrison’s mother was driving an SUV with three-year-old Teddy Harrison strapped into his car seat in the back when it was hit by an uninsured driver of a Corvette. The SUV rolled over repeatedly.
• Although Teddy was belted into his car seat, the safety seat somehow released and Teddy was ejected from the vehicle and so severely brain injured that he will require lifetime care.
• His grandmother sued Century Products Co., the manufacturer of the car seat, claiming it made "a false click" due to a defective design when the son was belted in by his father.
• The manufacturer’s case settled as trial was about to start for a confidential sum. The car seat manufacturer had intended to defend the case against it by blaming the parents.
• After the products case settled, his grandmother filed suit against the parents solely to obtain additional compensation for Teddy from the parents’ automobile insurance.
• Based upon the car seat manufacturer’s claim that the parents did not discover the defective design, the insurance company agreed that it owed its entire policy if an exception to the "gag rule" applied to the case.
• The trial court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the exception to the state’s "gag law" applies to the Harrison case.
• The Harrison’s insurance company appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.