Trial Magazine
Transportation
You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Products Liability SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
Appellate Court Affirms Jury Verdict in Harley-Davidson Design Defect Case
June/July 2019A New York appellate court held that a jury properly awarded damages to a couple who were injured when their Harley-Davidson motorcycle lost power unexpectedly and flipped over.
Experienced motorcyclist David Smalley was operating a Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Electra Glide motorcycle with his wife, Judith, seated behind him. The motorcycle lost power unexpectedly, causing David to steer off the road and onto a grassy area. The motorcycle hit a cavity in the ground and flipped over. The Smalleys suffered serious injuries.
They sued Harley-Davidson Motor Co., alleging strict products liability. A jury awarded the plaintiffs damages. On appeal, the defense argued that the trial court had erred in failing to give a spoliation charge or grant the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
Affirming, the appellate court considered the defense argument that spoliation sanctions were warranted based on the plaintiff insurance company’s salvaging of the Smalley motorcycle approximately two months after the incident. There is no evidence that the plaintiffs sought the destruction of the motorcycle with an intent to frustrate discovery, the court found. Moreover, Judith Smalley authorized the insurer to salvage the motorcycle almost three years before the couple filed suit, the court said, adding that both parties were prejudiced equally by the inability to inspect the motorcycle after the crash.
The court also determined that a directed verdict for the defense was not warranted here. The plaintiffs offered testimony from a qualified expert who stated that their motorcycle should have been subject to a recall in that it was identical to other recalled motorcycles containing a specific design defect. The expert was qualified to render an opinion, the court said, and the testimony—including that the motorcycle was defective due to its use of a 40-amp circuit breaker—was not incredible as a matter of law. Considering this and other evidence, the court concluded that it was not irrational for the jury to accept that the motorcycle had a design defect.
Citation: Smalley v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp. LLC, 2019 WL 1218197 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 15, 2019).
Plaintiff counsel: Anthony LaDuca and Michael Steinberg, both of Rochester, N.Y.