| Venue: |
CO SC
|
|
| Facts: |
Camacho bought a new Honda Hawk motorcycle. It didn't have leg bars,
although some other bikes did. Then he had a smash-up and his
legs were injured. |
|
| Posture: |
Summary judgment for Honda at trial. Affirmed on appeal. |
|
| Issue: |
Was summary judgment appropriate? Also, does the "crashworthiness"
doctrine apply? |
|
| Holding: |
No, and probably. Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Rule: |
If facts are in dispute, a trial is warranted. Also, if a motor
vehicle has a design defect that causes or enhances the injuries
sustained in an accident (not the accident itself), the manufacturer
may be held liable. |
|
| Reasoning: |
The fact that the dangers of a product are obvious doesn't consitute
a defense to the claim that the product is unreasonably dangerous.
We also don't want to rely wholly on the econsumer's perspective,
since they might not consider how a minimal change do design might
have produced a great deal more safety. Manufacturers have
access to this kind of data. Factors to consider when deciding
whether a product is unreasonably dangerous include:
- The product's utility to the user and the public
- The overall safety (likelihood and severity of injury) of
the product
- The availability of safer substitutes
- The manufacturer's ability to make the product safer without
imparing its usefulness or making it too expensive
- The user's abulity to avoid danger by appropriate care
- The user's anticipated awareness of the danger and its
avoidability (warnings, etc.)
- The feasibility of spreading the loss by setting the price
higher or carrying insurance
The question posed by the crashworthiness doctrine isn't whether
the vehicle was obviously unsafe, but rather whether the degree
of inherent dangerousness could have or should have been
significantly reduced. |
|
| Dicta: |
Dissent: ordinary consumers know motorcycles are dangerous, and there
were other models with more safety features for sale. |
|