Chappell v. TruckPro, LLC – Fourth Circuit Clarifies the “Preponderance” Threshold for Linking a Product to a Distributor in South Carolina Strict-Liability Litigation

1. Introduction

This commentary analyses the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Ernest Chappell v. TruckPro, LLC (No. 23-1784, decided 25 June 2025). The case arises from a fatal 2019 trucking accident in South Carolina in which Christopher Lee Chappell was killed when a load of logs penetrated his cab after a “cab-guard” allegedly failed. Ernest Chappell, acting both individually and as personal representative of his brother’s estate, sued TruckPro, LLC – a national parts distributor – under multiple product-liability theories. The District Court granted summary judgment to TruckPro, holding that the plaintiff could not show the distributor ever possessed or sold the specific cab guard involved.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, but on refined grounds: while the District Court misstated South Carolina law by requiring proof of a direct sale, the appellate court held that a plaintiff still bears the burden of linking the defendant to the specific product by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Mere speculation, even when supported by partial shipping data and expert inference, is insufficient.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Fourth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo.
• It acknowledged that South Carolina strict-liability law does not require a direct sale from the defendant to the end user.
• However, the plaintiff must still prove the defendant exercised control over the exact defective product before it entered the stream of commerce.
• The Court predicted, absent clear South Carolina authority, that the standard of proof for product identification is “at least by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• The circumstantial evidence offered (manufacturing date “448,” generic part number 68200008, and build-to-ship testimony) was too speculative to satisfy that standard.
• Therefore, although the District Court applied an incorrect legal formulation, the grant of summary judgment was affirmed on alternative grounds available in the record.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court relied heavily on both South Carolina and persuasive out-of-state decisions to frame the product-identification requirement:

• Baughman v. General Motors Corp., 627 F. Supp. 871 (D.S.C. 1985) – Established that plaintiff must show the defendant “manufactured, sold, or exercised control” over the specific offending component.
• Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 514 F. Supp. 1004 (D.S.C. 1981) – Required identification of the particular manufacturer of DES in utero exposure cases.
• Henderson v. Gould, Inc., 341 S.E.2d 806 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986) – Clarified that injection into the stream of commerce can occur without a literal sale.
• Persuasive authorities – McMahon v. Eli Lilly (7th Cir.), Healey v. Firestone Tire (N.Y.), and Kramer v. Weedhopper (Ill.) – uniformly endorse the “preponderance” threshold for product identification.

By synthesising these cases, the Court predicted South Carolina would likewise insist on a weight-of-the-evidence showing, rejecting probabilistic or evenly balanced proof.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Clarification of the District Court’s Error
   The District Court required evidence that Turner Trucking had bought the cab guard from TruckPro. The Fourth Circuit corrected that formulation: South Carolina does not demand proof of a direct transaction, only that the defendant “injected” the product into the marketplace.
2. Adoption of a Preponderance Standard
   Noting the absence of a definitive South Carolina rule, the Court imported the widely accepted civil standard that identification must be “reasonably probable, not merely possible or evenly balanced.”
3. Application to the Facts
   • Manufacturing codes (etching “448”) and the part number were non-exclusive identifiers.
   • Shipping records showed Road Gear sent 10 units to TruckPro and 2 to Trailmobile, but did not confirm those units bore the “448” mark.
   • TruckPro’s own sales records listed eight cab guards with the same generic part number – one of which pre-dated the manufacturing run altogether.
   • Plaintiff’s chain of inference therefore required two unknowns: (i) that the units sold in South Carolina were among the “448” batch, and (ii) that Turner acquired one of those specific units.
   • Because alternative inferences (e.g., unsold inventory in Memphis, a Trailmobile sale, or an entirely different distributor) were equally plausible, the evidence was “pure speculation.”

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

The judgment, though unpublished, carries persuasive weight in the Fourth Circuit and offers the clearest guidance yet on South Carolina’s product-identification burden:

• Heightened Evidentiary Precision – Plaintiffs must gather documentary or forensic proof (serial numbers, lot codes, purchase invoices, expert traceability) linking each defendant to the exact product.
• Discovery Strategy – Expect more aggressive discovery into distributor inventory practices, batch-tracking systems, and data retention to avoid summary judgment.
• Risk Allocation – Distributors may adopt bar-coding or RFID technology to minimise future “unknown origin” defences, while plaintiffs may seek spoliation sanctions where records are deficient.
• Legislative Pressure – The evidentiary hurdle may prompt calls for statutory “market-share” or “risk-contribution” theories, as some jurisdictions adopted in DES cases.
• Summary-Judgment Landscape – Defendants will likely cite Chappell in motions challenging speculative product linkage, potentially reducing jury trials where chain-of-title is weak.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Strict Liability – Liability that attaches without proving negligence; the focus is on a defective, unreasonably dangerous product.
• Stream of Commerce – The commercial pathway through which a product moves from manufacturer to end user; “placing” something in this stream triggers potential strict liability.
• Preponderance of the Evidence – The civil burden of proof meaning “more likely than not” (>50% probability).
• Summary Judgment – A procedural device allowing the court to resolve a case where no genuine dispute of material fact exists.
• Circumstantial Evidence – Evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact (e.g., shipping logs), as opposed to direct evidence (e.g., a purchase receipt naming the defendant).
• Build-to-Ship Model – A manufacturing practice of producing items only when an order is placed, minimising inventory.

5. Conclusion

Chappell v. TruckPro cements an important evidentiary principle in South Carolina product-liability law: plaintiffs must establish, at minimum by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant exercised control over the specific defective product before liability can attach. Although the Fourth Circuit corrected the District Court’s misstatement that a direct sale is necessary, it nevertheless affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiff’s chain of inferences was speculative.

For practitioners, the decision underscores the critical role of meticulous product tracing and record-keeping. For courts, it supplies a cogent template for evaluating product-identification disputes at the summary-judgment stage. And for legislators and industry actors, it spotlights potential gaps in traceability that may demand technological or statutory solutions. Ultimately, the case balances equitable access to recovery with the fundamental tenet that liability follows proof, not possibility.