In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged a designed defect in the lighting system of the motorcycle.
One defense presented by the Defendants was that the Plaintiff had substantially altered the lighting system on the motorcycle prior to the accident. More specifically, there was evidence in the record that the Plaintiff had installed an after market LED headlamp on the motorcycle in an effort to improve the headlamp’s brightness.
The record before the court confirmed that the Plaintiff took this step without following the specifications or alignment instructions in the owner’s manual for the motorcycle that was provided by the Defendants. It was also noted that the owner’s manual expressly warned against the use of non-specified parts and also outlined the appropriate wattage for headlamps.
The Defendants additionally contended that the Plaintiff’s claims for a negligent design and for strict product liability were legally insufficient as the subject motorcycle complied with all federal and state conspicuity regulations in terms pf head lamps.
The Defendants additionally contended that the Plaintiff’s claims for a negligent design and for strict product liability were legally insufficient as the subject motorcycle complied with all federal and state conspicuity regulations in terms pf head lamps.
The Defendant additionally argued that, in any event, the Plaintiff was aware of the alleged design defect and assumed the risk by continuing to operate the motorcycle.
The court denied the Motion after finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether there was an alleged design defect in the motorcycle’s lighting system. The court also found genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether the Plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury.
The court noted that both parties had produced conflicting evidence on the issue presented through expert reports on the issues of whether or not a design defect existed.
The court additionally noted that, while compliance with government standards is relevant to a claim for negligent design, such evidence is not determinative in cases of strict product liability regarding allegations of defects.
Accordingly, the judge denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 18, 2025).
The court denied the Motion after finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether there was an alleged design defect in the motorcycle’s lighting system. The court also found genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether the Plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury.
The court noted that both parties had produced conflicting evidence on the issue presented through expert reports on the issues of whether or not a design defect existed.
The court additionally noted that, while compliance with government standards is relevant to a claim for negligent design, such evidence is not determinative in cases of strict product liability regarding allegations of defects.
Accordingly, the judge denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 18, 2025).