Laing v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1993 WL 492562, 628 So. 2d. 196 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's pre-statutory products liability law, a product is unreasonably dangerous by design if its danger-in-fact outweighs its utility, and this design defect can be proven as the cause-in-fact of an injury through expert testimony and circumstantial evidence, even when the plaintiff has no memory of the accident.
Facts:
- Thomas Laing, a 25-year-old farmer with a degree in agronomy, purchased a new 1985 Honda ATC 250SX three-wheel ATV for use in his farming operation.
- Four days after the purchase, on November 18, 1985, Laing rode the ATV in the late afternoon to inspect his fields.
- While riding on a rough tractor path between cotton fields, Laing encountered a dirt clod approximately one foot high.
- Laing was found unconscious the following morning, lying 20 to 30 yards beyond the clod, with the ATV damaged on its left side.
- Laing was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
- There were no witnesses to the accident, and due to a severe traumatic brain injury that resulted in a two-month coma, Laing has no memory of the event.
- Expert analysis indicated that the top of the dirt clod appeared to have been knocked off, and ATV tracks led up to it.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas and Laurie Laing filed a products liability action in a Louisiana trial court against the retailer, Moeller's, Inc., the distributor, American Honda Motor Co., and the manufacturer, Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
- Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the Laings against Honda, apportioning fault as 75% to Honda and 25% to Thomas Laing. The claim against the retailer was dismissed.
- The jury awarded Thomas Laing $5,654,794.37 in damages and Laurie Laing $250,000 for loss of consortium, which were then reduced by Laing's 25% fault.
- Honda filed a post-trial motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The trial court partially granted the JNOV by reducing Laurie Laing's award to $100,000 but denied the motion in all other respects, upholding the remainder of the jury's verdict.
- Honda, as appellant, appealed the modified judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. The Laings, as appellees, answered the appeal seeking to reinstate the original consortium award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a three-wheel all-terrain vehicle (ATV) that is susceptible to a forward pitch roll and flipping over during a foreseeable sudden turn at a reasonable speed unreasonably dangerous by design, and was this inherent lateral instability the cause-in-fact of the rider's injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Brown
Yes. A three-wheel ATV is unreasonably dangerous by design when its inherent lateral instability makes it susceptible to flipping during a foreseeable maneuver, and this defect can be found to be the cause-in-fact of a rider's injuries. The court applied the risk-utility test from Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., which was the governing law at the time. The jury was presented with conflicting expert testimony regarding the cause of the accident. The plaintiffs' experts testified that the ATV's high center of gravity and design made it laterally unstable and prone to a 'forward pitch roll' at speeds as low as 15-25 m.p.h. if the rider executed a sudden swerve, such as one to avoid an obstacle. The defense experts argued Laing was traveling at an excessive speed (35 m.p.h.) and drove directly over the clod. The court found there was legitimate and substantial evidence for the jury to believe the plaintiffs' experts and conclude that the ATV's inherent instability, rather than the rider's actions, was the cause-in-fact of the accident. A reasonable jury could find that a vehicle designed for farm use that cannot safely navigate a common obstacle like a dirt mound is unreasonably dangerous because its risks outweigh its utility.
Analysis:
This case serves as a key example of applying Louisiana's former risk-utility balancing test for design defect claims before the enactment of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. It establishes that causation in a products liability case can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence through expert reconstruction and circumstantial evidence, even without eyewitnesses or victim testimony. The decision reinforces the high deference appellate courts afford to a jury's factual determinations, particularly when resolving conflicts in expert testimony. The ruling also underscores the trial court's broad discretion in evidentiary matters, such as excluding 'comparative risk' evidence deemed likely to confuse the jury.
