Bittner Ex Rel. Bittner v. American Honda Motor Co.
1995 Wisc. LEXIS 85, 533 N.W.2d 476, 194 Wis. 2d 122 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability action, evidence comparing the risk of injury associated with the product at issue to dissimilar and unrelated products and activities is irrelevant and inadmissible to determine whether the product is defective or unreasonably dangerous.
Facts:
- Russell Bittner, then twenty-six years old and an experienced ATV rider, was operating his 1983 three-wheel Honda 'Big Red' all-terrain vehicle (ATV).
- He was riding on a mowed grass path near his home that he had ridden on many times before.
- Bittner's brother, Robert, was also riding an ATV and was approximately 50 feet behind him.
- Bittner rounded a corner, went out of his brother's view, and his ATV overturned.
- Robert found Bittner lying on the ground about a foot away from the overturned ATV.
- There were no direct witnesses to the accident.
- As a result of the accident, Bittner sustained severe and permanent neurological injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Russell Bittner sued American Honda Motor Co., Inc. in the circuit court for Dodge County, Wisconsin (trial court) under theories of strict product liability and negligence.
- Following a seven-week trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Honda, finding the ATV was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and apportioning 51% of the causal negligence to Bittner.
- The circuit court entered a judgment dismissing Bittner's claims.
- Bittner filed post-verdict motions, including a motion for a new trial based on the court's error in admitting Honda's comparative risk evidence, which the circuit court denied.
- Bittner (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a products liability action, is 'comparative risk' evidence comparing the product at issue to dissimilar products and activities relevant and admissible to determine whether the product is defective or unreasonably dangerous?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, Chief Justice
No. Evidence comparing the risk of injury associated with a product to the risks of dissimilar products and activities is not relevant and should be excluded. The test for an 'unreasonably dangerous' product is whether it is dangerous beyond the extent contemplated by the ordinary consumer, not how its risk level compares to other products or activities. A consumer's choice to engage in a particular activity has no bearing on a manufacturer's duty of care regarding its product's design. While comparing a product to a similar one (e.g., a three-wheel ATV to a four-wheel ATV) can be relevant to show a safer alternative design was feasible, comparing it to dissimilar activities like scuba diving, football, or bicycling is irrelevant. Such evidence serves only to confuse the jury and improperly shift its focus away from the material issues of the product's design and safety. The court rejected Honda's argument that the plaintiff 'opened the door,' finding that all evidence comparing the ATV to dissimilar activities was introduced by Honda over the plaintiff's objection.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of defensive evidence in Wisconsin products liability cases by drawing a sharp line between admissible and inadmissible 'comparative risk' evidence. It establishes that while comparisons to similar products may be relevant to issues like alternative design, comparisons to dissimilar products or activities are per se irrelevant and prejudicial. The ruling reinforces that the legal focus must remain on the specific product's alleged defects and the manufacturer's duty of care, preventing defendants from diluting their responsibility by presenting evidence that their product is simply 'safer' than other unrelated risky activities. This precedent protects plaintiffs by ensuring the trial remains focused on the product in question rather than on a broad and distracting debate about relative societal risks.
