In a precedential opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Division has held that a motor vehicle that is safe and fit for its intended purpose is not defectively designed or violative of the New Jersey Products Liability Act (the PLA) just because it is not equipped with driver-assistance technologies. The decision clarifies manufacturers’ duties under the PLA where a product with known dangerous attributes is nonetheless reasonably safe.
The opinion, Berkoski v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., et al., decided on January 2, 2025, was issued in a case involving a Honda 2016 CR-V driven by Elizabeth MacNamara, which crossed the center line on a two-lane road in Cape May, New Jersey, and struck a 2011 Ford Escape driven by Ann Ramage. Both MacNamara and Ramage died as a result of injuries sustained in the crash.
Richard Berkoski, Ramage’s husband, filed a complaint against the Honda Motor Company alleging MacNamara’s 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). Affirming the trial court’s opinion, the Appellate Division held that the absence of those available driver-assistance systems, in a vehicle that was otherwise safe and fit for driving, did not, as a matter of law, establish that the 2016 Honda CR-V was defectively designed.
The Court reached this conclusion because the undisputed evidence established that the 2016 Honda CR-V was safe and suitable for driving as it had a functioning steering system that allowed the driver to maintain the intended lane of travel. The vehicle did not become unfit or unsafe because it did not include all existing driver-assistance technologies, even though those systems were available in high-end 2016 models for an extra charge.
Key points to consider:
Plaintiff’s Argument
- The omission of LDW and LKA systems rendered the vehicle defectively designed and unsafe under the New Jersey PLA.
- The inclusion of these technologies could have prevented the collision, based on expert testimony.
- The Honda Motor Company had a duty to include these driver-assistance systems as feasible alternative designs available at the time of manufacture.
Honda’s Defense
- The 2016 Honda CR-V met all federal and state safety standards and was safe for its intended purpose.
- Manufacturers are not required to include all available technologies in every model.
- The absence of LDW and LKA systems, which were not required by federal or state law, did not render the vehicle defective or unreasonably dangerous.
Court’s Decision
The Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Honda, reasoning:
- The 2016 Honda CR-V was “reasonably safe as a matter of law” because it complied with mandatory safety standards and had a functioning steering system, which allowed the driver to maintain the vehicle’s lane of travel.
- LDW and LKA systems, though available, were optional technologies in 2016. Their absence did not constitute a design defect under the PLA.
- The risk of lane departures is an inherent characteristic of driving, and ordinary consumers understand the need to maintain a vehicle’s lane of travel.
The Court reached its conclusion after considering the consumer expectations test as adopted by the PLA at N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a)(2). The Court held “under the [PLA] a product that satisfies the 3(a)(2) standard is, by statutory definition, not defectively designed. If the harm caused by a product ‘would be recognized by the ordinary person who uses or consumes the product,’ and if the harm stems from an ‘inherent characteristic of the product,’ N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-3(a)(2), then the harm is not actionable.”
This opinion also more generally holds that there is “merit in a phased-in approach to new technologies” and that “the [phased-in] approach is consistent with the PLA.”