Walker v. Ford Motor Co.
2017 CO 102
| Colo. | 2017Background
- Forrest Walker sued Ford after a 1998 Ford Explorer seat yielded in a rear-end crash; he alleged design-defect strict liability and negligence for a seat that allegedly increased his head/neck injuries.
- Trial featured extensive expert testimony on seat yield, engineering data, testing, benefits of yielding seats, and feasible alternative designs.
- The trial court instructed the jury using a pattern instruction that allowed either the consumer-expectation test or the risk-benefit test to establish a design defect, and also gave the Ortho seven-factor risk-benefit instruction.
- The jury returned verdicts for Walker on both strict liability and negligence and awarded nearly $3 million; Ford appealed after a post-trial motion was effectively denied.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning the consumer-expectation instruction duplicated a risk-benefit factor; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether it was error to give an instruction permitting the jury to apply either the consumer-expectation test or the risk-benefit test to decide a design defect | Walker argued it was proper to give both tests (pattern instruction was correct) | Ford argued only the risk-benefit test should apply because the seat’s dangerousness depended on technical, scientific evidence | Error: the risk-benefit test is the proper standard for complex/technical design-defect cases; giving the consumer-expectation test allowed the jury to apply an improper standard alone |
| Whether the jury’s separate negligence verdict rendered the instructional error harmless | Walker argued the negligence verdict provided an alternative, independent basis to affirm | Ford argued the negligence finding depended on the same (improperly-defined) concept of unreasonable danger and thus could be tainted | Not harmless: negligence required a determination of unreasonable danger and the jury was referred to the mixed (erroneous) instruction, so the negligence finding could rest on the improper consumer-expectation standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986) (risk-benefit test is appropriate where dangerousness is defined by technical, scientific information)
- Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1992) (clarifies application of risk-benefit factors and burden aspects)
- Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987) (consumer-expectation test inappropriate for complex automotive design issues; risk-benefit required)
- Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton, 845 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1993) (risk-benefit language overlaps with negligence concepts)
- Krueger v. Ary, 205 P.3d 1150 (Colo. 2009) (pattern jury instructions are not binding over case law)