Camacho v. Honda Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc · 1987 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityDesign defectCrashworthinessFailure to warnSummary judgmentRestatement (Second) of Torts § 402A

Facts

Jaime Camacho bought a new 1978 Honda Hawk motorcycle and was later injured in a collision with an automobile, suffering serious leg injuries. He and his wife sued Honda, alleging among other things strict liability because the motorcycle was defectively designed without crash bars that would have protected or mitigated leg injuries in a collision. The Camachos produced expert testimony that effective injury-reducing leg protection devices were feasible in March 1978, had been offered by some manufacturers as optional equipment, and would have reduced or avoided Camacho's injuries. Honda moved for summary judgment, arguing that a motorcycle without crash bars cannot be unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.

Issue

Whether, in a strict products liability design defect case involving a motorcycle, the absence of crash bars can render the motorcycle defective and unreasonably dangerous under section 402A. Relatedly, whether Colorado should apply a consumer-contemplation/open-and-obvious test or a broader danger-utility analysis, and whether the crashworthiness doctrine applies to motorcycles.

Rule

Colorado adopts the crashworthiness doctrine, including for motorcycles: a manufacturer may be liable in negligence or strict liability when a design or manufacturing defect, though not the cause of the accident, causes or enhances the injuries. In determining whether a product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous under section 402A, Colorado does not use an open-and-obvious or ordinary consumer contemplation test as the dispositive standard; instead, courts should apply a danger-utility balancing approach that considers the Ortho factors, including utility, likelihood and seriousness of injury, availability of safer substitutes, feasibility and cost of safer design, user ability to avoid danger, user awareness, and loss-spreading feasibility.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Dana Ortiz was driving a delivery van made by Sonoran Fleet Works when another motorist ran a red light and struck the van's side. Dana alleges the van's seat mount detached during the collision, throwing her into the door and greatly worsening her spinal injuries, though the detached seat did not cause the collision itself.

In Dana's strict products liability action against Sonoran Fleet Works, which is the strongest argument against the manufacturer's motion to dismiss?

Explanation. The majority adopted the crashworthiness doctrine in Colorado. Under that doctrine, a manufacturer may be liable in negligence or strict liability when a design or manufacturing defect, though not the cause of the accident, causes or enhances the injuries sustained in the accident. The other choices contradict that rule.