Calhoun v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd.
738 F.2d 126 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action, the plaintiff must introduce evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the alleged defect was the probable cause of the accident, as distinguished from a mere possible cause among other possibilities.
Facts:
- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda) issued a recall letter for its 1977 Honda 750 CB motorcycles, stating that the rear brake's effectiveness could be reduced during operation in 'heavy rain'.
- Richard Calhoun owned one of these motorcycles.
- On July 18, 1978, Calhoun took his motorcycle to a car wash.
- It was not raining on the day of the accident.
- Approximately thirty minutes after leaving the car wash, Calhoun collided with the rear of a stationary tractor-trailer truck while riding his motorcycle.
- Calhoun suffered severe injuries resulting in memory loss of the accident.
- A state police officer who responded to the scene observed forty feet of skid marks left by the motorcycle.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, representing Richard Calhoun, filed a strict liability lawsuit against Honda Motor Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
- The trial court denied Honda's pre-trial motion to exclude the recall letter from evidence.
- At the conclusion of the trial evidence, the court denied Honda's motion for a directed verdict.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding $1,250,000 in damages.
- Nine months after the verdict, the trial judge granted Honda's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), thereby setting aside the jury's finding.
- The trial judge also conditionally granted Honda a new trial in the event the JNOV was reversed on appeal.
- The plaintiff (as appellant) appealed the district court's grant of the JNOV to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff establish the element of causation in a strict products liability claim by presenting circumstantial evidence that an alleged defect was a possible, rather than the probable, cause of the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Keith, Circuit Judge
No. To establish causation in a strict products liability claim under Kentucky law, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, to show that the alleged defect was the probable cause of the injury, not merely a possible one. Calhoun failed to meet this burden. The evidence presented did not sufficiently prove that the conditions described in Honda's recall letter—reduced brake performance in 'heavy rain'—were present at the time of the accident. Plaintiff did not establish that washing the motorcycle was equivalent to operating it in heavy rain. The testimony of plaintiff's expert witness was deemed speculative because it was based on the unsupported assumption that the brakes were wet, without knowledge of critical facts like the brake pad's drying time or the number of stops Calhoun made after the wash. Conversely, Honda's experts conducted tests simulating the conditions and found no significant difference in braking performance. Because the accident could have resulted from other causes, such as driver inattentiveness, the plaintiff's evidence only established the defect as a possible cause, which is insufficient to sustain a verdict.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical importance of the causation element in strict products liability litigation. It clarifies that the existence of a known defect, even one acknowledged in a manufacturer's recall letter, is not sufficient for a plaintiff to prevail. The ruling establishes that a plaintiff must present concrete, non-speculative evidence linking that specific defect to the specific accident, elevating the causal connection from a mere possibility to a probability. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in cases built on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony that lacks a strong factual foundation, thereby protecting manufacturers from liability based on conjecture.
Unlock the full brief for Calhoun v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd.