The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that the absence of a driver-assistance system in a 2016 Honda CR-V was not a violation of the New Jersey Products Liability (PL) Act. 

The ruling in Berkoski v. Honda Motor affirms the lower court’s decision to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff’s product liability and negligence claims.

“The undisputed evidence in this matter establishes that the 2016 Honda CR-V was safe and suitable for driving because it had a functioning steering system that allowed the driver to maintain the intended lane of travel,” the opinion says. “The vehicle did not become unfit or unsafe because it did not include all existing driver-assistance technologies. Accordingly, we affirm the order granting summary judgment to defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s product liability and negligence claims. We also affirm the order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration”

According to the opinion, the suit follows a 2018 vehicle crash where a Honda CR-V, driven by Elizabeth MacNamara, crossed the center line on a two-lane road in Cape May and struck a 2011 Ford Escape driven by Ann Ramage. Both MacNamara and Ramage died as a result of injuries sustained in the crash, the opinion says. 

Richard Berkoski, Ramage’s husband, filed a complaint against Honda alleging the Honda CR-V was defectively designed and therefore unsafe because it was not equipped with a lane departure warning system (LDW) and a lane keeping assist system (LKA). 

Honda moved for summary judgement following the completion of discovery, the opinion says. 

“It argued that the 2016 Honda CR-V was not defectively designed, and it had no duty to equip every vehicle with all available technologies,” the opinion says. “Honda also contended that, under New Jersey law, a manufacturer is not liable if the allegedly unsafe characteristic of the product is known to the ordinary consumer or user. In that regard, Honda asserted that drivers are aware of the need to keep vehicles within their lane of travel and that the failure to do so could lead to fatal consequences.” 

A trial court ruled an order granting summary judgement to Honda and dismissing with prejudice all claims against Honda in November 2022, according to the opinion. It says the plaintiff moved for reconsideration but on Jan. 6, 2023 the trail court denied that motion. 

The opinion says the PL act recognizes three types of claims: manufacturing defect, failure to warn and design defect. It says the plaintiff claims there is a design defect with the vehicle. 

To establish that a product is defective, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a product was not reasonably fit, suitable or safe for its intended purpose, the opinion says. Plaintiff must also prove that the product’s risks outweighed its utility or that the product could have been designed in an alternative manner to minimize or eliminate the risk or harm. 

“Plaintiff’s experts acknowledged that both the LDW and LKA systems were aids designed to help a driver stay within their intended lane of travel,” the opinion says. “It is undisputable, however, that the driver could not rely exclusively on those aids.”

The opinion notes that the 2016 Honda CR-V owner’s manual states that LDW has limitations and that over-reliance on LDW may result in a collision. It also says the manual warns that LKA is not a substitute for vehicle control. 

 “In this case, we hold that the 2016 Honda CR-V was “reasonably safe” as a matter of law. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the foreseeability of the risk of harm and consumer expectations.” the article says. “It is undisputable that currently it is understood that the safe operation of a motor vehicle is dependent on the driver’s diligence in steering the vehicle and using the vehicle’s systems to control speed and braking. What future technologies may bring are not before us. Instead, our ruling is based on the record in this matter and the technologies available in 2016.” 

Counsel to Honda, Wendy F. Lumish, executive managing partner with Bowman and Brooke, said in a statement to the Law Journal, that the ruling “is an important precedent reaffirming critical product liability principles in the emerging area of ADAS technology litigation.”

IMAGES

Photo courtesy of deepblue4you/iStock