Walker-v-FordMotorCo-2017-15sc899.pdf - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0...

Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the
public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at
. Opinions are also posted on the
Colorado Bar Association’s homepage at .
ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
November 13, 2017
2017 CO 102
No. 15SC899, Walker v. Ford Motor Co. — Torts — Products Liability — Design Defect.
In this case, the supreme court considers whether a trial court errs when it gives
a jury instruction that allows the jury to apply either the consumer expectation test or
the risk-benefit test to determine whether a driver’s car seat was unreasonably
dangerous due to a design defect. The court concludes that the risk-benefit test is the
appropriate test to assess whether a product was unreasonably dangerous due to a
design defect when, as here, the dangerousness of the design is “defined primarily by
technical, scientific information.” Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410, 414 (Colo.
1986), overruled on other grounds by Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 183
(Colo. 1992). The court further concludes that the jury’s separate finding of negligence
did not render the instructional error harmless in this case.

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
2 East 14
th
Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
2017 CO 102
Supreme Court Case No. 15SC899
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Case No. 14CA273
Petitioner:
Forrest Walker,
v.
Respondent:
Ford Motor Company.
Judgment Affirmed
en banc
November 13, 2017
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Purvis Gray Thomson, LLP
John A. Purvis
Michael J. Thomson
Boulder, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent:
Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP
Edward C. Stewart
Jessica G. Scott
Theresa R. Wardon
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers:
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
S. Kirk Ingebretsen
Denver, Colorado
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Victor E. Schwartz
Phil S. Goldberg
Cary Silverman
Washington, District of Columbia

2
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Colorado Civil Justice League and American Tort Reform
Association:
Taylor Anderson LLP
Lee Mickus
Margaret Boehmer
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association:
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.
Brian K. Matise
David K. TeSelle
Nelson P. Boyle
Englewood, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.:
Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC
Mary A. Wells
L. Michael Brooks, Jr.
Denver, Colorado
CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

3
¶1
In this products liability case, we consider whether the trial court erred when it
gave a jury instruction that allowed the jury to apply either the consumer expectation
test or the risk- benefit test to determine whether a driver’s car seat was unreasonably
dangerous due to a design defect. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court
did err by instructing the jury separately on the consumer expectation test, because the
test already comprises an element of the risk-benefit test. Walker v. Ford Motor Co.,
2015 COA 124, ¶¶ 26 – 28, __ P.3d __.