Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was driving his Honda 750 CB motorcycle to work when he collided with the rear of a stationary tractor-trailer truck. There were no witnesses to the accident and as a result of his injuries P does not recall what happened. A Kentucky state policeman was called to the scene and he later testified that the motorcycle had left forty feet of skid marks on the pavement. P sued D alleging strict liability for his injuries. The alleged product defect was poor wet braking performance due to a design defect present in all 1977 Honda 750 CB motorcycles. P relied upon a recall letter issued by Honda five months prior to the accident. The performance of the rear brake pad was reduced by heavy rain conditions. It had not rained the day of the accident. P had visited a car wash approximately thirty minutes prior to the collision. 's expert witness, Stanley Klein, read the recall letter into evidence and testified he had examined the motorcycle after the accident. Stanley blamed the skidding on wet brake pads, just like the recall letter based on the fact that they were washed with a high-pressure hose just a short distance or short time interval prior to the accident, and a mixture of soap and wax and water. D refuted this evidence with actual tests conducted as per the alleged facts and found no significant difference in the rear brake performance between the pre-wash and post-wash. D made a motion for a directed verdict which was denied. The jury found for P and awarded him $1,250,000. Nine months later, the district court granted D a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co