 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Armentrout v. FMC Corp.11/23/1992
III of the majority opinion which places on plaintiffs a burden of proving the unreasonable dangerousness of a product using risk-benefit analysis. Maj. op. at 11-12. Risk-benefit analysis should play no role in this case, which concerns the design of a mobile crane. As I stated in Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 741 P.2d 1240, 1249 (Colo. 1987) (Vollack, J., Dissenting),
the risk-benefit test . . . applied in Ortho is an appropriate test for products such as drugs, because their danger "is defined primarily by technical, scientific information," and because some drugs are unavoidably unsafe in some respect. A consumer of drugs cannot realistically be expected to foresee dangers in prescribed drugs which even scientists find to be complex and unpredictable.
Id. at 1251 (citing Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410, 414 (Colo. 1986). Like the motorcycle purchaser in Camacho, Armentrout had knowledge of the dangers of working on the crane's platform while the crane was in operation. Id. I thus conclude, as I did in Camacho, that the risk-benefit test is not the proper test to employ in this case. Id.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|