Emily LaPrade, who has had no sensation below her T10 vertebra since a car accident on January 1, 2014, allegedly suffered second-degree burns on her left buttock after riding in the front passenger seat of the family's Tiguan on September 4, 2023. She used the seat heater at its highest setting for roughly 20 to 30 minutes and then at the middle setting for about an hour. She did not notice any injury until she returned home. Three days later she went to the emergency room, where physicians diagnosed her with two second-degree burn wounds and cellulitis; she received intravenous antibiotics and was prescribed oxycodone. LaPrade and her husband Jonathan sued Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. under the Washington Product Liability Act, alleging defective design and failure to warn.
U.S. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright, sitting in the Western District of Washington, denied summary judgment on the design-defect claim after concluding that genuine disputes of material fact exist on both defect and causation. The key evidence came largely from Volkswagen's own expert: mechanical engineer Uwe Meissner conducted temperature tests on the Tiguan's seat and recorded sustained temperatures of 122 to 123 degrees Fahrenheit — roughly 50 degrees Celsius — while the heater was at its highest setting with an occupant in the seat. Dr. Meissner's own report included a graph from SAE J3047, the Society for Automotive Engineers' standard for heated automobile seats, showing that 50 degrees Celsius exceeds the first-degree burn threshold after just a few minutes of exposure. The same report noted that manufacturers could limit heater temperatures through thermostats, electronic control units, or auto-adjustment features. Judge Cartwright held that this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the seat heater unsafe beyond what an ordinary consumer would expect — even one with full sensation.
On causation, the parties' medical experts disagreed sharply. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Jan Zemplenyi and treating physician Dr. June A. Burn both diagnosed LaPrade with second-degree burns attributable to the seat heater. Volkswagen's expert Dr. Erik Brand characterized the injury as more likely a pressure ulcer caused by a combination of prolonged sitting, impaired sensation, prior tissue compromise, and other factors, with heat playing only a secondary role at most. Judge Cartwright held that resolving that conflict is a jury function, not a matter for summary judgment.
The failure-to-warn claim fared differently. The Tiguan's owner's manual contained a warning — with an orange "WARNING" header — stating that people who cannot perceive pain or temperature, or who have a limited perception of these, could develop burns or undercooling when using seat heating, and that people with a limited perception of pain and/or temperature must never use the seat heating and seat ventilation functions. Volkswagen's human-factors expert Dr. Chason Coelho concluded that the manual's warnings complied with SAE J3047 and the American National Standard for Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions and Other Collateral Materials (ANSI Z535.6), and further opined that even in-vehicle warnings near the seat heater controls would not have changed LaPrade's behavior because she was not motivated to seek out warnings. Both LaPrade and her husband testified that they had never read the owner's manual before the incident. Judge Cartwright held that the plaintiffs offered no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the existing warnings inadequate, and granted summary judgment for Volkswagen on that claim.
On the Daubert motion, Judge Cartwright split the difference on plaintiffs' forensic mechanic Roger Smedsrud. She allowed him to testify about the temperature readings he collected using an infrared thermometer and diagnostic tool — finding his 32 years of mechanic experience and more than 3,000 vehicle inspections sufficient qualification for that limited purpose, and noting that Volkswagen's own expert also conducted some tests without an occupant in the seat. She excluded Smedsrud's opinion that the seat heater temperatures were "set too high from the factory," however, because he identified no standard by which he reached that conclusion, acknowledged he was unaware of any publication setting a maximum reasonable seat-heater temperature, and based his view solely on the fact that he had "never seen one this high before." Judge Cartwright held that such a subjective, conclusory approach cannot be assessed for reliability under Rule 702.
The design-defect claim now proceeds to trial. Jonathan LaPrade's loss-of-consortium claim and the failure-to-warn claim are dismissed with prejudice.