Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 51844-1,52607-9,s. 51844-1 |
| Citation | 727 P.2d 655,107 Wn.2d 127 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 55 USLW 2295, 2 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 445, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,233 Bradley Lester BAUGHN, an incompetent person, by Jack G. Baughn, his general guardian, Appellant, v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., an alien corporation; Honda Research & Development Company, alien corporations, and American Honda Motor Company, a foreign corporation, Respondents. Douglas BRATZ, an incompetent person, by Frank B. Ladenburg, the guardian of his estate, Appellant, v. HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., (Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha), an alien corporation; Honda Research & Development Company, an alien corporation; and American Honda Motor Company, a foreign corporation, Respondents. |
Anderson, Caraher, Brown & Burns, James Caraher, Tacoma, for appellant Bratz.
Keller, Rohrback, Waldo, Hiscock, Butterworth & Fardal, Pinckney Rohrback, Thomas Heller, Seattle, for Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Bryan Harnetiaux, Winston & Cashatt, Robert Whaley, Spokane, amici curiae for appellants Washington Trial Lawyers Assn.
Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, William Robertson, Frankie Crain, Seattle, amici curiae for respondents Washington Ass'n of Defense Counsel.
READ OWNER'S MANUAL CAREFULLY
THIS VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED FOR OFF-THE-ROAD USE ONLY. DO NOT OPERATE ON PUBLIC STREETS, ROADS OR HIGHWAYS.
The owner's manual contained similar explicit instructions against driving on public streets and roads. In the trial court and on appeal, able counsel for the children injured in this tragic accident vigorously argued every seemingly conceivable ground of recovery. Their principal thrust on appeal, however, was to urge this court to adopt a rule which, in practical effect, would hold the manufacturer of mini-trail bikes absolutely liable for injuries sustained by users thereof. We have carefully considered this latter argument but decline to so hold; instead, we adhere to the established principles of strict liability as enunciated by this court in Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wash.2d 145, 542 P.2d 774 (1975) and subsequent cases applying the strict liability doctrine. If mini-trail bikes are to be declared illegal in this state, the Legislature, which can hold public hearings and consider all viewpoints and aspects of the matter, is the appropriate body to so decide. For the reasons more particularly set forth hereinafter, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment of dismissal.
FACTS OF CASE
On August 14, 1972, Douglas Bratz and Bradley Lester Baughn were injured while riding a Honda Z50AK3 mini-trail bike. Douglas, whose birthdate is October 21, 1963, was driving the mini-trail bike on a public road in Pierce County. Bradley, born October 15, 1963, was riding behind Douglas as a passenger. The boys were being chased by Donna Tillman and Rory Baughn on Donna's minibike.
Douglas drove through three stop signs without stopping before colliding with a truck. Just before the collision, Douglas was looking at Donna instead of the road ahead of him. Bradley was not wearing a helmet; Douglas apparently wore one that flew off on impact because it was unfastened
The mini-trail bike had been purchased a few days before the accident by Vernon Bratz for his three children. Bratz had bought his children another minibike in 1969, which all three of them rode. Bratz bought two motorcycles for himself in 1967. He told his children several times not to ride either minibike in the street. Before the accident occurred, Douglas and Bradley were riding the Honda in the street outside the Bratz home. Douglas' mother, June, knew where they were but did nothing to stop them.
Bradley Baughn's father Jack bought two minibikes for his children before the accident, and had his own motorcycle as well. He had instructed his children that the two minibikes were not meant for road use. Two weeks before the accident, he had punished Bradley for riding his minibike in the street. He spanked him and took the bike away. He had also told his children not to ride on the Bratz bikes as passengers because they could get hurt.
The mini-trail bike contained its own instructions regarding road use. A decal on the mini-trail bike stated that the bike was manufactured for off-the-road use only, and added "Always Wear a Helmet". The first page of the owner's manual stated in bold print that the bike was for off-the-road use only.
On September 7, 1976, more than 4 years after the accident, Jack Baughn was appointed guardian ad litem for Bradley and filed suit against June Bratz in Pierce County Superior Court. The suit was settled and dismissed on February 8, 1978. On September 19, 1978, Jack Baughn was appointed Bradley's general guardian. On November 17, 1982, he filed an amended complaint in federal district court against Honda Motor Company, Limited, Honda Research and Development Company and American Honda Motor Company (collectively Honda) on behalf of Bradley.
Honda named Bradley's and Douglas' parents as third-party defendants. Pursuant to FRCP 41(a), the parties stipulated on August 1, [727 P.2d 659] 1983 that all claims were dismissed without prejudice and without costs, and could be refiled in Pierce County Superior Court
Baughn refiled his case in Pierce County on August 2, 1983. Douglas Bratz also filed suit against Honda on September 13, 1983. Bratz named all three Honda companies in his complaint, but American Honda Motor Company was the only defendant served and hence the only defendant involved in the Bratz suit. The trial judge ordered the cases consolidated on January 25, 1984. A guardian for Douglas was appointed on May 30, 1984 and filed an amended complaint on Douglas' behalf on June 29, 1984.
Ultimately, the trial court granted Honda's motions for summary judgment and dismissed the Bratz and Baughn claims. Baughn's motion for reconsideration was similarly denied.
Baughn appealed directly to this court and we accepted review. 1 Bratz appealed to the Court of Appeals, but later moved to transfer the appeal to this court and consolidate the two cases; we granted these motions.
There is a considerable degree of overlap in the issues presented in the 415 pages of briefs filed in this case, out of which emerges one ultimate issue.
Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on a public road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?
CONCLUSION. Where there are no design or manufacturing defects in the product, and where the warnings concerning its use are adequate, a manufacturer is not liable for an accident and resulting injuries. The mini-trail bike was, as its name implied, a "trail" bike. It was not designed or On appeal, Baughn argues that Honda is liable under the theories of negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)) and misrepresentation (Restatement § 402B). Bratz discusses the same theories and adds a claim that Honda should be held liable for breach of express warranty.
equipped for on-the-road use. The accident in this case occurred because the boys who were injured ignored Honda's and their parents' warnings not to ride the mini-trail bike on streets and roadways, and because they ignored stop signs on the roadway and collided with a truck they had not seen because they were looking elsewhere. Honda is not legally responsible for the boys' injuries
Though the plaintiffs raise many issues under the heading of strict liability, the principal issue is Baughn's challenge to the standard set forth in Tabert for determining when a product may be considered defective, as is required in order to establish strict liability. 2 In Tabert, this court held that a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for manufacturing a defective product if that product is not reasonably safe. "This means that it must be unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be reasonably contemplated by the ordinary consumer." 3
The Tabert "consumer expectations" test has been consistently applied by Washington courts in determining whether a manufacturer is strictly liable for manufacturing an unreasonably dangerous and therefore defective product. 4 Tabert is widely recognized as a leading case in setting In determining a consumer's expectations regarding a product's safety, factors such as the relative cost of the product, the gravity of the potential harm from the claimed defect and the cost and feasibility of eliminating or minimizing the risk are to be considered. 6 Under Tabert, liability is not imposed simply because a product causes harm. 7 Rather, it must be shown that a product that caused harm was not reasonably safe. 8
forth standards for imposing strict liability for a defective product. 5
While usually called a "consumer expectations" test, the Tabert rule actually combines the consideration of consumer expectations with an analysis of the risk and utility inherent in a product's use. Thus, some commentators find it more accurate to call the Tabert test "a consumer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
...claim" under Washington law. Thongchoom v. Graco , 117 Wash.App. 299, 71 P.3d 214, 219 (2003) (citing Baughn v. Honda Motor Co. , 107 Wash.2d 127, 727 P.2d 655, 669 (1986) ). However, there is a third party beneficiary exception to the privity requirement: for a remote purchaser, "implied w......
-
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
...Daughtrey v. Ashe, 413 S.E.2d 336, 338-39 (Va. 1992); CBS Inc. v. Ziff-Davis Pub. Co., 75 N.Y.2d 496, 503 (1990); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655, 669 (Wash. 1986). As for notice, in California, a plaintiff must provide pre-suit notice to the product manufacturer within a reasonable......
-
Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.
...cause to go to the jury and to support the verdict. In support of the statement quoted above, defendant cites Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash.2d 127, 144, 727 P.2d 655 (1986), which does not hold what defendant represents. What Baughn did hold, correctly, is that whether warnings were a......
-
Armentrout v. FMC Corp.
...v. Lowe's of Boone, Inc., 754 S.W.2d 67 (Tenn.App.1988); Beans v. Entex, Inc., 744 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.App.1988); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash.2d 127, 727 P.2d 655 (1986); Parker v. Heasler Plumbing & Heating Co., 388 P.2d 516 (Wyo.1964). See also 3 American Law of Products Liability 3d ......
-
Design defects.
...to present both standards as alternative tests); Phipps v. Gen. Motors Corp., 363 A.2d 955, 957-63 (Md. 1976); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655, 660 (Wash. 1986) (applying "consumer expectations test with a risk-utility base"). Colorado courts appear now to have interpreted Ortho as ......
-
A Seller's Responsibilities to Remote Purchasers for Breach of Warranty in the Sales of Goods Under Washington Law
...the warranty and his warrantor, and that the warrantor must be his seller. See Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash. 2d 127, 150-53, 727 P.2d 655, 668-69 (1986); Reitz, supra, at Similarly, section 2-315, which provides for a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, provides that the "s......
-
Table of Cases
...10.3(6) Basin Paving Co. v. Mike M. Johnson, Inc., 107 Wn.App. 61, 27 P.3d 609 (2001): 12.2(2)(c), 12.7 Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wn.2d 127, 727 P.2d 655 (1986): 22.4(5) Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 88 Wn.2d 917, 568 P.2d 771 (1977): 23.4 Bennett v. Computer Task Grp., 112 Wn.App. 10......
-
§22.4 Warranty
...between the buyer and seller must exist before a plaintiff may maintain an action for a breach of warranty. Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wn.2d 127, 727 P.2d 655 (1986). "Recovery for breach of an express warranty is contingent on a plaintiff 's knowledge of the representation." Touchet Va......