No. 85SC112Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided July 13, 1987. Rehearing Denied September 8, 1987.
Page 1241
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Roger T. Castle, P.C., Roger T. Castle, for Petitioners.
Greengard Senter, Richard D. Greengard, Holly E. Rebstock, Steven J. Dawes, for Respondents.
Gerald P. McDermott; Waller, Mark Allen, P.C., Denis H. Mark, for Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association.
Holland Hart, John C. Siegesmund, III; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
Flom, Malcolm E. Wheeler, Charlotte A. Lowell, for Amici Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc.
EN BANC
JUSTICE KIRSHBAUM delivered the Opinion of the Court.
[1] We granted certiorari to review the decision in Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 701 P.2d 628 (Colo.App. 1985), in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order dismissing claims filed by the petitioners, Jaime Camacho and Kathleen Camacho (the Camachos), against the respondents, Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda).[1] The Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Honda because the absence of leg protection devices could not as a matter of law render a motorcycle a defective and unreasonably dangerous product under the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A (1965). We reverse and remand with directions.I
[2] In March 1978, Jaime Camacho (Camacho) purchased a new 1978 Honda Hawk motorcycle, model CV400T2, from a Honda dealer.[2] In May 1978, while driving the motorcycle through an intersection, Camacho collided with an automobile and sustained serious leg injuries. Camacho and his wife filed an action against Honda seeking damages for personal injuries, property losses, loss of consortium and exemplary
Page 1242
damages. The action was based on several theories, including strict liability.[3] The Camachos alleged that the motorcycle was a defectively designed, unreasonably dangerous product under the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A because it was not equipped with “crash bars” — tubular steel bars attached to the motorcycle frame to protect the rider’s legs in the event of a collision. They asserted that if such crash bars had been installed on the motorcycle, Camacho’s leg injuries would have been mitigated.
[3] Two mechanical engineers employed by the Camachos testified in depositions that, in light of their extensive research work on motorcycle crash bars, including testing conducted for the United States Department of Transportation, the state of the art in mechanical engineering and motorcycle design was such that effective injury-reducing, leg protection devices were feasible in March 1978 and that several manufacturers other than Honda had made such devices available as optional equipment;[4]that, although room for further improvement of crash bars existed in March 1978, crash bars then available from manufacturers other than Honda provided some protection in low-speed collisions and, in particular, would have reduced or completely avoided the serious leg injuries suffered by Camacho; and that Honda itself had conducted some of the seminal research on crash bars in 1969, as the result of which Honda’s engineers had concluded that injury-reducing crash bars could be manufactured by strengthening the steel bars which had been tested and providing strong bolts to attach the bars to the motorcycle frame. [4] Honda moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law a motorcycle lacking crash bars cannot be deemed unreasonably dangerous. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that (1) because the danger of leg injury was obvious and foreseeable, Honda had no duty to totally alter the nature of its product by installing crash bars; and (2) Honda had no duty under the crashworthiness doctrine to add a safety feature to its product to reduce the severity of injuries resulting from accidents. [5] In agreeing with the trial court’s conclusions, the Court of Appeals held that the determination of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous because of a design defect is to be made on the basis of whether the extent of the danger “would have been fully anticipated by or within the contemplation of” the ordinary user or consumer. Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 701 P.2d 628, 631. Because the criteria applied by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are inconsistent with our decisions in Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986), and Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 196 Colo. 162, 583 P.2d 276 (1978), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
II
[6] In Roberts v. May, 41 Colo. App. 82, 583 P.2d 305 (1978), the Court of Appeals recognized the applicability of the “crashworthiness” doctrine in Colorado. Under this doctrine, a motor vehicle manufacturer
Page 1243
may be liable in negligence or strict liability for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident where a manufacturing or design defect, though not the cause of the accident, caused or enhanced the injuries. See generally 2 L. Frumer M. Friedman, Products Liability § 3.03[4][f][v] (1987). The doctrine was first recognized in the landmark case of Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968), in which the court noted that a manufacturer’s duty encompassed designing and building a product reasonably fit and safe for its intended use, that automobiles are intended for use on the roadways and that injury-producing collisions are a frequent, foreseeable and statistically expectable result of such normal use. Incumbent upon the automobile manufacturer was a duty of reasonable care in the design and manufacture of its product, including a duty to use reasonable care to minimize the injurious effects of a foreseeable collision by employing commonsense safety features. Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495, 501-02. The crashworthiness doctrine has been adopted by the vast majority of courts in other jurisdictions which have considered the issue. E.g., Hermann v. General Motors Corp., 720 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1983); Sours v. General Motors Corp., 717 F.2d 1511 (6th Cir. 1983); Horn v. General Motors Corp., 17 Cal.3d 359, 131 Cal.Rptr. 78, 551 P.2d 398 (1976); Ford Motor Co. v. Evancho, 327 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976); Farmer v. International Harvester Co., 97 Idaho 742, 553 P.2d 1306 (1978); Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620, 377 N.E.2d 954 (1978); Hancock v. Paccar, Inc., 204 Neb. 468, 283 N.W.2d 25 (1979); McMullen v. Volkswagen of America, 274 Or. 83, 545 P.2d 117 (1976); see generally 1 R. Goodman, Automobile Design Liability § 1:4 (2d ed. 1983) (noting the nearly universal acceptance of the crashworthiness doctrine). We agree with the reasoning of those decisions, as did the Court of Appeals in its consideration of this case, and adopt the crashworthiness doctrine for this jurisdiction.
[7] The crashworthiness doctrine has been applied to accidents involving motorcycles. E.g., Taylor v. American Honda Motor Co., 555 F. Supp. 59(M.D. Fla. 1983) (lack of leg protection devices); Stueve v. American Honda Motor Co., 457 F. Supp. 740 (D. Kan. 1978) (inability of gas tank to withstand collision); Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc., 684 P.2d 888 (Ariz.App. 1984) (inability of gas tank to withstand collision); Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 370 So.2d 68 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979) (lack of leg protection devices); O’Donnell v. City of Casper, 696 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1985) (inability of gas tank to withstand collision). Honda argues, however, that motorcycles are inherently dangerous motor vehicles that cannot be made perfectly crashworthy and, therefore, that motorcycle manufacturers should be free of liability for injuries not actually caused by a defect in the design or manufacture of the motorcycle. We find no principled basis to conclude that liability for failure to provide reasonable, cost-acceptable safety features to reduce the severity of injuries suffered in inevitable accidents should be imposed upon automobile manufacturers but not upon motorcycle manufacturers. The use of motorcycles for transportation over roadways is just as foreseeable as the use of automobiles for such purpose. The crashworthiness doctrine does not require a manufacturer to provide absolute safety, but merely to provide some measure of reasonable, cost-effective safety in the foreseeable use of the product. E.g., Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495, 501-02; Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 370 So.2d 68, 70-71; see generally 1 R. Goodman, Automobile Design Liability § 1:4 (2d ed. 1983). Honda acknowledges that motorcycle accidents are just as foreseeable as automobile accidents and that motorcycle riders face a much greater risk of injury in the event of an accident than do occupants of automobiles. In view of the important goal of encouraging maximum development of reasonable, cost-efficient safety features in the manufacture of all products, the argument that motorcycle manufacturers should be exempt from liability under the crashworthiness doctrine because serious injury to users of that product
Page 1244
is foreseeable must be rejected. Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Division of AMF, Inc., 684 P.2d 888, 894; Nicolodi v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 370 So.2d 68, 70-71.[5]
III
[8] In determining the extent of liability of a product manufacturer for a defective product, this court has adopted the doctrine of strict products liability as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A (1965). Smith v. Home Light Power Co., 734 P.2d 1051 (Colo. 1987) Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1984); Anderson v. Heron Eng’g Co., 198 Colo. 391, 604 P.2d 674 (1979); Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 190 Colo. 57, 544 P.2d 983 (1975). Section 402A provides:
Page 1245
product to establish that the product is unreasonably dangerous appropriately places reasonable limits on the potential liability of manufacturers. However, we also held in Pust that the fact that the dangers of a product are open and obvious does not constitute a defense to a claim alleging that the product is unreasonably dangerous. We noted that adoption of such a principle would unfairly elevate the assumption of risk defense to a question of law.[6] The obvious and foreseeable consumer contemplation test employed by the trial court and approved by the Court of Appeals is substantially similar to the open and obvious standard specifically rejected in Pust. It is not the appropriate standard in Colorado for measuring whether a particular product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or user.
[22] A consumer is justified in expecting that a product placed in the stream of commerce is reasonably safe for its intended use, and when a product is not reasonably safe a products liability action may be maintained. See Bradford v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., 33 Colo. App. 99, 517 P.2d 406 (1973); accord, e.g., Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976); Putensen v. Clay Adams, Inc., 12 Cal.App.3d 1062, 91 Cal.Rptr. 319 (1970); Owens v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 414 Mich. 413, 326 N.W.2d 372 (1982); Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1986); O’Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169, 463 A.2d 298 (1983); Voss v. Black Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204 (1983) Phillips v. Kimwood Mach. Co., 269 Or. 485, 525 P.2d 1033 (1974) Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978) Galvan v. Prosser Packers, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 690, 521 P.2d 929 (1974); see also W. Prosser The Law of Torts § 96 at 641, 644-45 (4th ed. 1971) (Dean Prosser, Reporter for Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, noting that the basis of strict liability for design defects is that reasonable care must be used to design a product that is reasonably safe for its intended or foreseeable uses). Of course, whether a given product is reasonably safe and, therefore, not unreasonably dangerous, necessarily depends upon many circumstances. Any test, therefore, to determine whether a particular product is or is not actionable must consider several factors. While reference to “reasonable” or “unreasonable” standards introduces certain negligence concepts into an area designed to be free from those concepts, e.g., Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443 (1978); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1979); see generally J. Beasley, Products Liability and the Unreasonably Dangerous RequirementPage 1246
21-35, 72-94 (1981); Birnbaum, Unmasking the Test for Design Defect: From Negligence [to Warranty] to Strict Liability to Negligence, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 593 (1980), that difficulty is much less troublesome than are the problems inherent in attempting to avoid dealing with the competing interests always involved in allocating the risk of loss in products liability actions, see generally W.P. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 99 (5th ed. 1984); Wade On Product “Design Defects” and Their Actionability, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 551, 570-71 (1980). In this regard, comment c to section 402A contains the following pertinent observations:
[23] “c. On whatever theory, the justification for the strict liability has been said to be that the seller, by marketing his product for use and consumption, has undertaken and assumed a special responsibility toward any member of the consuming public who may be injured by it; that the public has the right to and does expect, in the case of products which it needs and for which it is forced to rely upon the seller, that reputable sellers will stand behind their goods; that public policy demands that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them, and be treated as a cost of production against which liability insurance can be obtained; and that the consumer of such products is entitled to the maximum of protection at the hands of someone, and the proper persons to afford it are those who market the products.” [24] These considerations strongly suggest that the consumer contemplation concept embodied in comment i, while illustrative of a particular problem, does not provide a satisfactory test for determining whether particular products are in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. In the final analysis, the principle of products liability contemplated by section 402A is premised upon the concept of enterprise liability for casting defective products into the stream of commerce. Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363 (Colo. 1983). The primary focus must remain upon the nature of the product under all relevant circumstances rather than upon the conduct of either the consumer or the manufacturer. Smith v. Home Light Power Co., 734 P.2d 1051; Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363; Bradford v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., 33 Colo. App. 99, 517 P.2d 406; Wade, On Product Design Defects and Their Actionability, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 551 (1980). Total reliance upon the hypothetical ordinary consumer’s contemplation of an obvious danger diverts the appropriate focus and may thereby result in a finding that a product is not defective even though the product may easily have been designed to be much safer at little added expense and no impairment of utility.[7] W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 99 at 66 (5th ed. 1984). Uncritical rejection of design defect claims in all cases wherein the danger may be open and obvious thus contravenes sound public policy by encouraging design strategies which perpetuate the manufacture of dangerous products. Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 196 Colo. 162, 583 P.2d 276; accord, e.g., McGowne v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc., 672 F.2d 652 (8th Cir. 1982) (applying Missouri Law); Davis v. Fox River Tractor Co., 518 F.2d 481 (10th Cir. 1975) (applying Oklahoma law); Beloit Corp. v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 (Ala. 1976); Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., 113 Ariz. 264, 550 P.2d 1065 (1976); Auburn Mach. Works Co. v. Jones, 366 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1979); Siruta v. Hesston Corp., 232 Kan. 654, 659 P.2d 799 (1983); Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., 324 N.W.2d 207 (Minn. 1982). [25] In Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410, we recently recognized that exclusive reliance uponPage 1247
consumer expectations is a particularly inappropriate means of determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous under section 402A where both the unreasonableness of the danger in the design defect and the efficacy of alternative designs in achieving a reasonable degree of safety must be defined primarily by technical, scientific information.[8] Moreover, manufacturers of such complex products as motor vehicles invariably have greater access than do ordinary consumers to the information necessary to reach informed decisions concerning the efficacy of potential safety measures. Harris, Enhanced Injury Theory: An Analytical Framework, 62 N.C.L. Rev. 643, 675 (1984). The principles that have evolved in the law of products liability have in part been developed to encourage manufacturers to use information gleaned from testing, inspection and data analysis to help avoid the “massive problem of product accidents.” Palmer v. A.H. Robins Co, Inc., 684 P.2d 187
(Colo. 1984) (quoting Owen, Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation, 74 Mich. L. Rev. 1257, 1258 (1976)).
Page 1248
setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance.”
[34] Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410, 414 (relying on Wade, On the Nature of Strict Tort Liability for Products, 44 Miss. L.J. 825, 837-38 (1973)). The factors enumerated in Ortho are applicable to the determination of what constitutes a product that is in a defective unreasonably dangerous condition. By examining and weighing the various interests represented by these factors, a trial court is much more likely to be fair to the interests of both manufacturers and consumers in determining the status of particular products. [35] The question of the status of the motorcycle purchased by Camacho involves in part the interpretation of mechanical engineering data derived from research and testing — interpretation which necessarily includes the application of scientific and technical principles. In addition, the question posed under the crashworthiness doctrine is not whether the vehicle was obviously unsafe but rather whether the degree of inherent dangerousness could or should have been significantly reduced. The record contains some evidence to support the conclusion that Honda could have provided crash bars at an acceptable cost without impairing the motorcycle’s utility or substantially altering its nature and Honda’s failure to do so rendered the vehicle unreasonably dangerous under the applicable danger-utility test. It is far from certain, however, that the ultimate answer to this question can be determined on the basis of the limited facts thus far presented to the trial court.IV
[36] Camacho also asserts that the failure to provide adequate warnings rendered the Honda Hawk motorcycle in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous. A manufacturer may be strictly liable to the user of a product when failure to provide adequate warnings renders the product defective and unreasonably dangerous. Palmer v. A.H. Robins Co, Inc., 684 P.2d 187; Anderson v. Heron Eng’g Co., 198 Colo. 391, 604 P.2d 674. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that an otherwise dangerous product is used in a reasonably safe manner. Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 196 Colo. 162, 583 P.2d 276; Hiigel v. General Motors Corp., 190 Colo. 57, 544 P.2d 983; Bailey v. Montgomery Ward Co., 690 P.2d 1280 (Colo.App. 1984); Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A comment j (1965). Presuming, without deciding, that the Honda motorcycle was unreasonably dangerous or was rendered unreasonably dangerous by a failure to warn, it is unclear on precisely what basis Camacho asserts that a warning would have rendered the product reasonably safe.[9] Arguably, a warning that injury-reducing crash bars were available as optional equipment or as add-on equipment would render an otherwise unreasonably dangerous motorcycle reasonably safe. See, e.g., Wagner v. International Harvester Co., 611 F.2d 224, 231 (8th Cir. 1979) (where motor vehicle could not be used as intended without a known risk of accidents involving rollovers, manufacturer’s duty to supply safe product would have been fulfilled if rollover protection offered as option); cf. Height v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., 190 N.J. Super. 7, 461 A.2d 757 (where motorcycle rider burned by gasoline sprayed from relief valve following collision, refusal to instruct on failure to warn proper in absence of proof that warning would have made fuel system safer or that plaintiff could have done anything to prevent his burns other than avoid collision), cert. denied, 94 N.J. 615, 468 A.2d 244 (1983). We conclude that the efficacy of providing a warning is an appropriate issue for further inquiry by the trial court on remand.
V
[37] Under C.R.C.P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper only when there is no
Page 1249
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. E.g., Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1987); Huydts v. Dixon, 199 Colo. 260, 606 P.2d 1303
(1980). The moving party has the burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. Urban v. Beloit Corp., 711 P.2d 685
(Colo. 1985); Ginter v. Palmer Co., 196 Colo. 203, 585 P.2d 583 (1978).
I.
[44] Although some jurisdictions have deleted the “unreasonably dangerous” language, Colorado has expressly retained it. Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 196 Colo. 162, 171 n. 5, 583 P.2d 276, 282 n. 5 (1978); Pothoff v. Alms, 41 Colo. App. 51, 53, 583 P.2d 309, 311 (1978). A plaintiff must prove “that a product was both `defective’ and `unreasonably dangerous’ in order to sustain a cause of action in strict liability under section 402A.” Kysor Indus. Corp. v. Frazier, 642 P.2d 908, 911 (Colo. 1982).
II.
[45] We have not before decided what test should apply in determining whether a product is “unreasonably dangerous” in a design defect case. I believe the appropriate
Page 1250
test is defined in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment i (1965). Comment i states: “The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics” [hereinafter the consumer contemplation test].
[46] Some jurisdictions have adopted this test; others have adopted it in part or rejected it. See Nichols v. Union Underwear Co., 602 S.W.2d 429(Ky. 1980) (“Some seventeen jurisdictions adhere to this rule, eighteen have repudiated it, and sixteen, including Kentucky, have not addressed the issue.” Id. at 432). [47] Some states using this test are the following: [48] “Illinois applies a `consumer expectation’ test whereby a defective condition of a product will be considered `unreasonably dangerous’ when it is `dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.'” [49] Riordan v. International Armament Corp., 132 Ill. App.3d 642, 650, 87 L.Ed.2d 477 N.E.2d 1293, 1298 (1985); Barnes v. Vega Indus., Inc., 234 Kan. 1012, 676 P.2d 761 (1984) (trial court did not err in giving jury instruction defining unreasonably dangerous in accord with the comment i consumer expectation test); Willamette Essential Oils v. Herrold Jensen, 683 P.2d 1374 (Or.App. 1984) (discussing Oregon’s Uniform Jury Instruction, which states: “`A product may be shown to be defective by proof of one (or more) of the following: . . . 1. A defect in manufacture; 2. A defective design; 3. Failure to perform safely under circumstances in which, from common knowledge, the average user reasonably could have expected the product to perform safely.'” Id. at 1377); Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wn.2d 145, 154, 542 P.2d 774, 779 (1975) (defective product not reasonably safe in products liability “means that it must be unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be reasonably contemplated by the ordinary consumer.”). [50] Other jurisdictions have adopted a variation of the consumer expectation test. Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., 147 Ariz. 242, 709 P.2d 876
(1985) (where consumer expectation test is sufficient to resolve a case, that test is to be used; where that test “fails to provide a complete answer,” application of risk/benefit factors is appropriate. 147 Ariz. at 245-46, 709 P.2d at 879-80); Nichols v. Union Underwear Co., 602 S.W.2d 429 (Ky. 1980) (consumer expectation or knowledge is just one factor to be considered by a jury in determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. Id. at 433); Knitz v. Minster Machine Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 460, 432 N.E.2d 814 (1982) (product is of defective design “if (1) it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) if the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk inherent in such design.” Id. at 466, 432 N.E.2d at 818). [51] Other states have rejected the consumer expectation test. Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co., 421 Mich. 670, 365 N.W.2d 176 (1984) (“[W]e adopt, forthrightly, a pure negligence, risk-utility test in products liability actions against manufacturers of products, where liability is predicated upon defective design.” Id. at 691, 365 N.W.2d at 186); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1979) (risk-utility test will be applied “when the considerations of utility and risk are present in the state of the evidence.” Id. at 851).
III.
[52] The Colorado Court of Appeals has held that in a strict liability case the focus is “on the product itself and the consumer’s expectations with regard to that product.” Bradford v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., 33 Colo. App. 99, 110, 517 P.2d 406, 413 (1974). In a products liability action against a brake pedal manufacturer, the court applied the language of section 402A comment i: “[A] product is `unreasonably dangerous’ if it is
Page 1251
dangerous `to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it. . . .'” Id.
[53] In Curtis v. General Motors Corp., the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Colorado law in a case involving an automobile manufacturer’s alleged failure to provide adequate roll-over protection. 649 F.2d 808(10th Cir. 1981). The Tenth Circuit held that when a strict liability claim is predicated on a manufacturer’s failure to install an added safety device, “liability will not attach simply because a feasible alternative would have rendered the product safer.” 649 F.2d at 811, applied in Davis v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 719 P.2d 324, 327 (Colo.App. 1985). [54] The cases discussed demonstrate that states have taken a variety of approaches to resolve this question. Because of the nature of the product here, I believe the appropriate test is the consumer contemplation or consumer expectation test. The facts presented in this case differ from cases which involve the defective condition of products such as automobile brakes, prescription drugs, and gas tanks. With those types of products, the ordinary consumer is not capable of assessing the danger of the product. On the other hand, an ordinary consumer is necessarily aware that motorcycles can be dangerous. The plaintiff had the choice to purchase other motorcycles by other manufacturers which carried additional safety features, and instead elected to purchase this particular motorcycle and ride it without leg protection devices. The conclusion follows that the trial court’s ruling and the court of appeals’ decision were correct.
IV.
[55] I believe the majority errs in applying the “crashworthiness” or “second collision” test to these facts. The “crashworthiness” test goes to injuries “usually caused by the so-called `second collision’ of the passenger with the interior part of the automobile, [which] are foreseeable.” Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968), quoted in Roberts v. May, 41 Colo. App. 82, 85, 583 P.2d 305, 308 (1978). This case does not involve additional or enhanced injuries suffered by the plaintiff’s impact or “second collision” with the motorcycle itself.