— Most automotive lawsuits involve allegations of vehicles with defective components which make the vehicles defective. But a lawsuit in New Jersey alleges a Honda CR-V was defective only because it wasn't equipped with certain features.
The big question is this: Is a vehicle defectively designed simply because it does not include a driver-assistance technology that is not required by federal or state law?
In this case, the plaintiff contends a 2016 Honda CR-V was defectively designed because it was not equipped with a lane departure warning system and a lane keeping assist system.
The tragic fatal crash occurred on August 4, 2018, when Elizabeth MacNamara, 73, was driving a 2016 Honda CR-V southbound on County Road (CR) 657 in Cape May County, New Jersey.
The lawsuit says CR 657 is a two-lane road divided by a single dotted yellow line and has a 50 miles per hour speed limit. The day of the crash was cloudy but it wasn't raining at a section of road that is flat and mostly straight.
Shortly before noon, the Honda CR-V crossed the center line and crashed head-on into a 2011 Ford Escape driven by Dr. Ann Ramage, 64.
The crash killed both MacNamara and Ramage.
Data from the Honda CR-V showed there was zero steering torque for the five seconds before the crash, the brake pedal hadn't been pressed, the turn signals weren't engaged and the Honda was traveling 47 to 50 mph.
The Honda CR-V Crash Lawsuit
In April 2020, plaintiff Richard T. Berkoski, husband of Ford Escape driver Ann Ramage, sued Honda by claiming the 2016 Honda CR-V driven by Elizabeth MacNamara was defectively designed and unsafe because it was not equipped with a lane departure warning (LDW) system and a lane keeping assist (LKA) system.
According to the plaintiff, the crash would have been prevented if the Honda CR-V would have had the LDW and LKA systems installed, and if those systems would have been engaged the day of the deadly crash.
If it's activated, a lane departure warning system will alert the driver if it detects the vehicle has unintentionally crossed over a lane marking without a turn signal in use. The system alerts the driver by sending an audible beep and illuminating a lane departure message on the vehicle's information display screen.
However, the LDW feature does not provide any braking or steering assistance.
Then when a lane keeping assist system is activated, the system will apply steering torque to help the driver keep the vehicle in the center of the lane of travel.
If the vehicle unintentionally crosses a detected lane line, a message will appear on the vehicle's information display screen, an audio alert will sound and the vehicle will apply steering torque to return the vehicle to the center of its intended lane of travel.
The plaintiff presented two experts, a design expert and a causation expert. One expert testified the LDW and LKA systems "were available and economically feasible technologies that could have been added to the 2016 Honda CR-V."
He also claims the 2016 Honda CR-V was unsafe because it did not have those features.
The other expert opined, "[h]ad the subject Honda been equipped with the available [LKA system], the subject collision would not have occurred."
However, both experts agreed the 2016 Honda CR-V complied with all mandatory motor vehicle safety standards.
One expert for the plaintiff testified there is no "federal or state law that requires the inclusion of every possible technology, even those that may be considered safety systems on every vehicle."
He also testified he had not found any "mechanical failure" in the Honda CR-V.
Honda admits the lane departure warning and a lane keeping assist systems were available in 2016. Those features were available for the high-end model of its 2016 Honda CR-V, and Honda says those systems could have been added to other 2016 models for an extra charge if requested by the customer.
However, the plaintiff maintained Honda should have provided those technologies even though the 2016 Honda CR-V complied with all other motor vehicle safety standards.
Motion to Dismiss the Honda CR-V Crash Lawsuit
Honda said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the 2016 Honda CR-V was not defectively designed, and Honda had no duty to equip every vehicle with every available technology.
Honda also argued 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."
Honda asserted 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.
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, rejected the plaintiff's arguments and determined omission of the the features did not make the Honda unsafe.
A manufacturer's duty is to provide a reasonably fit, suitable and safe product, and manufacturers do not have a duty to install every available technology.
In the end, the "court concluded that plaintiff had not shown that the 2016 Honda CR-V was not reasonably safe for its intended use and that there was no evidence of a design defect."
Honda CR-V Crash Lawsuit Appeal
The plaintiff appealed the lawsuit dismissal to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, which agreed with the lower court ruling.
The appeals court noted how the plaintiff never alleged the 2016 Honda CR-V had a defective steering system, or that there was a failure to warn of the obvious risk of allowing a car to cross over into another lane where vehicles are traveling in the opposite direction.
The plaintiff also does not dispute the ordinary user of a vehicle recognizes a vehicle needs to maintain its lane of travel and that crossing into a lane where other vehicles are traveling in the opposite direction is unsafe.
According to the appeals court, it is "undisputable" that the driver could not rely exclusively on those driver aids.
The 2016 Honda CR-V owner's manual says, "[l]ike all assistance systems, LDW has limitations . . . [o]ver-reliance on LDW may result in a collision," and that "[LKA] is not a substitute for your vehicle control . . . [it] does not work if you take your hands off the steering wheel or fail to steer the vehicle."
In short, there is no claim the CR-V was a self-driving vehicle.
According to the appeals court:
"Nowhere in the current record is there proof as to E. McNamara's condition at the time of the fatal accident. Nor is there any proof that she would have activated the LDW and LKA systems or that she would have responded to their warnings."
The court ruled 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 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." — New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
The Honda CR-V crash lawsuit is: Richard T. Berkoski v. Honda Motor Company, LTD., et al.
