The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is the designer and manufacturer of a wide variety of protective headgear. D's model #1601 'general duty' helmet was designed at the request of police agencies for exclusive police use. It was not designed or intended for use by police officers assigned to motorcycles. The 1601 has a special snap harness arrangement that permits quick release and easy removal to protect police officers in riot and crowd control situations. The quick snap release prevents a police officer from being maneuvered or injured by someone pulling on his model # 1601 helmet. D also designs and manufactures a model # 1602 helmet for police officers using motorcycles. The 1602 uses a D-ring harness arrangement, which is not designed for quick release. Both models are packaged in the same type of box. The exterior of the box has artist illustrations of some of the uses of the headgear, including illustrations of a motorcyclist wearing a helmet. The distinctive uses of both helmets, however, are indicated in D's brochures, which are distributed with the helmets upon delivery to the police departments. Neither model is sold to the general public. The Denver Police Department purchased both types of helmets. The 1601 helmets were painted blue, and the 1602 helmets were painted white. The Department had a policy of giving the used, cosmetically-damaged, 1601 helmets to Denver police officers for their personal use. The helmets were placed in a discard bin in the warehouse of the Department, from which officers could select a helmet. The chief supply officer for the Department testified that he knew that the helmets would be used privately as motorcycle helmets. At no time, however, was D informed of the giveaway program. P was a Denver police officer. Upon graduation from the police academy, he was issued a new 1601 helmet for general duty purposes, which was packaged in its original box. Early in 1975, after buying a motorcycle for recreational dirt bike riding, P selected a used 1601 helmet from the discard bin. P did not receive a box when he selected the 1601 helmet from the discard bin. P was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with a pickup truck. P was wearing the used 1601 helmet he had obtained from the discard bin. P was thrown several feet into the air and, before he hit the ground, his helmet came off his head. P suffered severe head injuries as a result of the accident. P sued D for (1) strict liability for the manufacture of a defective product under section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (section 402A); (2) negligent manufacture of a product; (3) res ipsa loquitur; and (4)] strict liability for misrepresentation of a product under section 402B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (section 402B). The claims for negligence and res ipsa loquitur were dismissed. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury on P's strict liability claim for misrepresentation of a product under section 402B, and limited instructions to the jury regarding proximate cause to strict liability arising out of the manufacture or design of a defective product (section 402A). The case was then submitted on a claim of strict liability for the manufacture of a defective product under section 402A. The jury returned a verdict in favor of D. P appealed. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and concluded that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on P's section 402B claim. The court of appeals expressly adopted, for the first time in Colorado, the doctrine of strict liability for misrepresentation of a product under section 402B. D appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.