Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc.
684 P.2d 888, 1984 Ariz. App. LEXIS 392, 141 Ariz. 7 (1984)
Rule of Law:
Under the crashworthiness doctrine, a product manufacturer is strictly liable for injuries caused by a design defect that makes the product unreasonably dangerous in foreseeable collisions, as such collisions constitute a reasonably foreseeable use of the product, even for motorcycles. For an assumption of risk defense to apply in this context, the plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the specific risk that caused the enhanced injury, not merely a general awareness of danger.
Facts:
- On March 21, 1980, Jose Cota was driving a 1973 Harley-Davidson Electraglide motorcycle south on State Route 77, north of Mammoth, Arizona.
- Cota's motorcycle collided with a northbound 1978 Toyota pickup truck operated by Virginia M. Saliz.
- As a result of the collision, one of the motorcycle's gasoline tanks ruptured, causing a fire.
- Jose Cota, then 21 years old, sustained severe burns, leading to the loss of his ears, most of his fingers, and his right leg above the knee.
- Experts testified that the motorcycle's right fairing bracket penetrated the right gas tank, causing the rupture, and that the design of the bracket and fuel tanks was defective, making the motorcycle unreasonably dangerous in foreseeable frontal impacts.
- Experts stated that safer alternative designs for the fairing bracket and fuel tanks existed that would have prevented the fire without changing utility, significantly increasing cost, or bringing adverse consequences.
- Both plaintiffs' and defendants' experts agreed that the same result (tank rupture and fire) would have occurred if each vehicle had been traveling at speeds between 20 to 30 mph.
- Evidence showed that over 30% of all motorcycle impacts are to the front portion of the vehicle, and 60-70% involve collisions within 30 degrees of the front, figures known to manufacturers before 1973.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Cota and his wife, Dorothy, filed a products liability lawsuit against Harley-Davidson, a Division of AMF, Inc., in the Arizona trial court (court of first instance), alleging strict liability based on a crashworthiness theory.
- Defendants filed a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages, which the trial court denied.
- Plaintiffs moved the trial court to exclude evidence of Jose Cota's drinking prior to the accident and that he was driving on the wrong side of the road; the trial court granted this motion, allowing only evidence of the mechanics of impact.
- During the nine-day jury trial, an alternate juror, Reginald D. Lewis, informed the court he could not be fair due to dislike for plaintiffs' lawyers and a pro-motorcycle bias, and stated he had discussed the center of gravity of a motorcycle with another juror, Nancy Johnston.
- The trial court conducted voir dire of Lewis, then excused him.
- The following morning, the trial court conducted individual voir dire of each remaining juror, who all affirmed their ability to be fair and impartial.
- Defendants moved for a mistrial based on juror misconduct and the earlier denial of the bifurcation motion, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Jose Cota for $3,500,000 and in favor of Dorothy Cota for $175,000 for loss of consortium.
- Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, as appellants, with Jose and Dorothy Cota as appellees.
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 crashworthiness doctrine, which holds a manufacturer strictly liable for design defects that cause enhanced injuries in foreseeable collisions, preclude the defenses of assumption of risk, product misuse, and unforeseeable use, and the introduction of facts related to the initial cause of the accident, when a motorcycle is involved in a foreseeable highway speed collision?
Opinions:
Majority - Howard, Judge
Yes, the crashworthiness doctrine, which applies to motorcycles, generally precludes the defenses of product misuse and unforeseeable use in foreseeable collisions, and the defense of assumption of risk requires specific knowledge of the defect rather than general danger. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a mistrial, finding no probable prejudice from alleged juror misconduct. The trial court also correctly denied the motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages, exercising broad discretion under Rule 42(b), especially given that defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of risk were still active, potentially necessitating the plaintiff's presence. The court extensively applied the crashworthiness doctrine, citing Larsen v. General Motors Corp., which established a manufacturer's duty to design products to minimize injuries from foreseeable impacts, viewing accidents as a foreseeable use. This doctrine extends to motorcycle manufacturers, as motorcycle accidents are just as foreseeable as automobile accidents, with foreseeability being the conceptual cornerstone, per Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motors Company, Inc. Therefore, given that the collision was foreseeable (even at lower speeds), there was no basis for a product misuse or unforeseeable use instruction. The court found that an assumption of risk instruction was unwarranted because Jose Cota only possessed a general knowledge of danger, not actual knowledge of the specific risk that the fairing bracket could penetrate the gas tank at collision speeds. Finally, the trial court properly excluded evidence of Cota's drinking and being in the wrong lane, as such facts were irrelevant to the crashworthiness claim (which focuses on enhanced injuries due to design, not the cause of the initial impact) and would improperly prejudice the jury. The 'send a message' argument made by plaintiffs' attorney in closing was deemed proper in context, not a punitive damages argument, but rather a response to the defense's claims about product design and industry standards.
Concurring - Birdsall, C.J., and Hathaway, J.
We concur with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidifies the application of the crashworthiness doctrine to motorcycles in Arizona, emphasizing that manufacturers have a duty to design products to protect users from enhanced injuries in foreseeable impacts. It clarifies that, in crashworthiness cases, the cause of the initial accident (e.g., driver's conduct or intoxication) is generally irrelevant to the claim of enhanced injuries due to design defect. Furthermore, the ruling raises a high bar for the assumption of risk defense, requiring specific knowledge of the design defect rather than mere general awareness of inherent product dangers, thereby limiting manufacturers' ability to shift blame to consumers in design defect claims.
