2015 COA 124
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Forrest Walker sued Ford after a 1998 Ford Explorer seat yielded in a rear-end collision, alleging traumatic brain and neck injuries caused by a defectively designed driver’s seat (design defect/strict liability and negligence).
- Walker alleged the recliner mechanism and seat configuration allowed sudden rearward collapse and seat-belt hooking, causing the seat to drop.
- At trial the jury received two instructions: (1) CJI‑Civ. 4th 14:3 (which combined a consumer expectation formulation and a risk‑benefit clause) and (2) a separate seven‑factor risk‑benefit instruction derived from Ortho/Armentrout.
- The jury returned a plaintiff verdict; Ford appealed arguing the consumer expectation instruction was improper and that evidence of defect/causation and of other incidents was insufficient or unduly prejudicial.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the CJI instruction misapplied Colorado law by treating the consumer expectation test as an alternative to the risk‑benefit test and by allowing the jury to consider consumer expectations twice, and ordered a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separate instruction on consumer expectation (CJI‑Civ. 4th 14:3) was proper alongside the Ortho/Armentrout risk‑benefit instruction | Walker relied in part on ordinary consumer expectations about seat behavior to show defect | Ford argued giving both tests (consumer expectation + risk‑benefit) allowed the consumer test to be used instead of the multifactor risk‑benefit analysis and was reversible error | Court held the consumer expectation language should not appear as an alternative; consumer expectation is encompassed within factor 6 of the risk‑benefit test, so instructing both separately (as given) was reversible error and not harmless; reversed and remanded for new trial with revised instruction (omit “would not ordinarily be expected or”) |
| Whether the consumer expectation test survives Ortho or is subsumed by risk‑benefit | Walker maintained consumer expectation is a viable standalone theory for ordinary products | Ford asserted Ortho (and later cases) preclude giving consumer expectation as an alternative to risk‑benefit | Court held consumer expectation survives but only as part of the risk‑benefit multifactor analysis (factor 6); it should not be given separately as an alternative test |
| Sufficiency of evidence on design defect, alternative design, and causation (JNOV) | Walker presented expert testimony that alternative designs (e.g., Chrysler Sebring seat; Ford high‑retention design) would have reduced injury and that coupling/headrest deficiencies caused injuries | Ford argued Walker failed to prove an available safer design or that the seat caused injuries beyond those from the collision | Court denied JNOV; found competent expert testimony supported a reasonable jury verdict on defect, alternative design, and causation |
| Admissibility of other‑incident evidence | Walker offered prior incidents involving Ford Explorers to show notice and defect | Ford contended incidents were not substantially similar and were unfairly prejudicial | Court found the incidents were sufficiently similar (same model/seat design), the trial court limited presentation, and admission was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987) (endorses multifactor risk‑benefit approach and critiques exclusive reliance on consumer expectation)
- Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986) (adopts risk‑benefit framework for certain products; source of seven‑factor test)
- Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1992) (adopts/expands the Ortho seven‑factor risk‑benefit test)
- Biosera, Inc. v. Forma Scientific, Inc., 941 P.2d 284 (Colo. App. 1996) (trial courts previously allowed instructing both tests; Court of Appeals here disagrees with that aspect)
- Forma Scientific, Inc. v. Biosera, Inc., 960 P.2d 108 (Colo. 1998) (superseding appellate discussion; post‑Ortho/Camacho jurisprudence)
- White v. Caterpillar, Inc., 867 P.2d 100 (Colo. App. 1993) (discusses applicability of risk‑benefit vs. consumer expectation)
- Fed. Ins. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Co., 570 P.2d 239 (Colo. 1977) (trial courts must ensure pattern jury instructions correctly state prevailing law)