Camacho v. Honda Motor Co.
741 P.2d 1240 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability claim for a design defect, whether a product is 'unreasonably dangerous' is determined by weighing factors related to the product's risks and utility, not merely by whether its dangers are open and obvious to the ordinary consumer.
Facts:
- In March 1978, Jaime Camacho purchased a new 1978 Honda Hawk motorcycle.
- The motorcycle was designed and sold without 'crash bars' or any other device to protect the rider's legs.
- At the time of purchase, several other manufacturers made such leg protection devices available as optional equipment.
- Years earlier, in 1969, Honda's own research concluded that effective, injury-reducing crash bars could be manufactured.
- In May 1978, while riding the motorcycle, Camacho collided with an automobile.
- As a result of the collision, Camacho sustained serious leg injuries.
- Expert testimony indicated that if crash bars had been installed on the motorcycle, Camacho's leg injuries would have been mitigated or completely avoided.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaime and Kathleen Camacho sued Honda Motor Co. in a state trial court on a theory of strict products liability.
- Honda filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that a motorcycle without crash bars is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted Honda's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Camachos' claims.
- The Camachos, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Honda, the appellee.
- The Camachos, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the Colorado Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 the obviousness of a danger from a product's design, such as the lack of leg guards on a motorcycle, preclude a strict liability claim that the design is unreasonably dangerous?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirshbaum, Justice
No. The obviousness of a danger does not preclude a strict liability claim for a defective design; instead, whether a product is unreasonably dangerous should be determined by applying a risk-utility analysis. First, the court formally adopts the 'crashworthiness doctrine' for Colorado, holding that a manufacturer's duty includes designing a product to be reasonably safe and to minimize injuries during a foreseeable collision. This duty applies to motorcycles just as it does to automobiles. The court rejects the 'consumer contemplation test' from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment i, as the sole standard for determining a design defect. That test, which focuses on whether a danger is beyond the contemplation of the ordinary consumer, is too similar to the 'open and obvious' danger defense which the court had previously rejected in Union Supply Co. v. Pust. Total reliance on consumer contemplation would wrongly shift focus from the product's safety to the consumer's knowledge and would encourage manufacturers to perpetuate dangerous designs. Instead, courts must apply a risk-utility balancing test, weighing factors such as the product's utility, the likelihood of injury, the availability of safer alternatives, and the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the danger without impairing utility or making the product too expensive. Because the Camachos presented expert evidence that effective crash bars were a feasible and cost-effective alternative design, a genuine issue of material fact exists, and summary judgment for Honda was improper.
Dissenting - Vollack, Justice
Yes. A product's design should not be considered unreasonably dangerous if its risks are open and obvious and therefore contemplated by the ordinary consumer. The consumer contemplation test from § 402A comment i is the appropriate standard for a product like a motorcycle, whose dangers are commonly understood. Unlike complex products with hidden dangers like prescription drugs, where a risk-benefit test is necessary, the risks of riding a motorcycle without leg protection are apparent to any ordinary consumer. The plaintiff chose to purchase this specific motorcycle, aware of its design, and should not now be able to hold the manufacturer liable for a condition he accepted. The majority's reliance on the risk-benefit test from Ortho Pharmaceutical is misplaced because that case involved a product whose dangers were highly technical and not apparent to a consumer. Therefore, the trial court and Court of Appeals correctly granted summary judgment for Honda based on the consumer contemplation test.
Analysis:
This decision marks Colorado's definitive rejection of the 'consumer contemplation' test as the sole standard for design defect claims, especially where dangers are open and obvious. By adopting a risk-utility balancing test, the court shifts the focus from the consumer's expectations to the manufacturer's design choices and the feasibility of safer alternatives. This significantly broadens potential liability for manufacturers of products with patent dangers, forcing them to justify their design choices based on a cost-benefit analysis rather than simply pointing to the user's awareness of the risk. The case solidifies the principle that the 'open and obvious' nature of a risk is not a complete defense in design defect cases but is merely one factor to consider in the overall risk-utility analysis.
Unlock the full brief for Camacho v. Honda Motor Co.