Walker-v-FordMotorCo-2017-15sc899.pdf - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be

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

This preview shows page 1 - 5 out of 18 pages.

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.
Image of page 1
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
Image of page 2
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.
Image of page 3
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 __.
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 18 pages?

  • Summer '16
  • Timothy Tahkihashi
  • Appellate court, Product liability, Consumer expectation test

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture