On Tuesday, October 22, judges on Part E will hear oral argument in Berkoski v. Honda Motor Co. Ltd. The briefing on that appeal, which has been taken from the Law Division’s grant of a defense motion for summary judgment, can be found here. Plaintiff is represented by three different law firms, while defendants have a local New Jersey firm and attorneys from two different offices of what appears to be a national defense firm representing them. An amicus in support of defendants submitted a brief as well. All that seems to indicate that this case is a big deal.
The case involves a head-on auto collision as a result of which both drivers died. Plaintiff’s decedent, Ann Ramage, was killed when a 2016 Honda CR-V crossed over the center line and collided with plaintiff’s decedent’s vehicle. Plaintiff sued several Honda entities (together, “Honda”) and the estate of the other driver, Elizabeth MacNamara. The appeal is as to the grant of summary judgment to Honda.
Plaintiff alleged that the Honda CR-V was defectively designed because it did not have Lane Departure Warning (“LDW”) or Lane Keep Assist (“LKA”) systems installed in that vehicle. Honda marketed other 2016 model vehicles with LDW and LKA systems, showing that such technology was available. But it was not present in the 2016 CR-V. Plaintiff offered evidence that had those systems been installed, the CR-V would not have drifted over the center line and the crash would not have occurred. A jury could thus have found the vehicle unreasonably dangerous, according to plaintiff.
Honda countered that the cause of the crash was Ms. MacNamara’s failure to keep her vehicle on her side of the road and that the vehicle was not defectively designed. As a matter of law, all that was required of Honda was to provide a vehicle that was reasonably safe, which the CR-V was. The fact that other available features that could have made the vehicle even safer were omitted did not make the vehicle unreasonably dangerous. And the LDW and LKA systems were designed to assist a properly careful driver, not to substitute for one.
The oral argument can be viewed at this link.
