Calhoun v. Honda Motor Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
738 F.2d 126 (1984)
Richard Calhoun (plaintiff) washed his Honda 750 CB motorcycle, drove to his aunt’s house, braking at least twice along the way, then parked it outside for 20 minutes. Next, Calhoun drove several miles before hitting a stopped tractor trailer. Calhoun could not remember what happened beforehand, but the motorcycle left 40 feet of skid marks on the road. Calhoun sued Honda Motor Company (defendant) for strict products liability, based on a letter that Honda sent recalling the motorcycle five months before the accident. A Honda executive testified that Honda recalled the motorcycle because customers complained that heavy rains reduced its braking performance. Honda corrected the problem by cutting grooves in the brake pads, allowing water to escape. Calhoun’s expert, Stanley Klein, testified that uncontrolled braking performance caused the brakes to lock up and Calhoun to lose control. When Honda’s counsel asked Klein if he had an opinion on whether the brakes were wet at the time, Klein said he did, based on Calhoun’s washing the brakes with a high-pressure hose shortly beforehand. But Klein did not know how much time had passed, how far Calhoun had travelled, how many stops Calhoun had made, the material of the brake pads, or their drying time. When opposing counsel asked if Klein knew whether the brakes locking up or Calhoun “just not reacting to the situation” caused the accident, Klein replied, “I have no way of knowing,” and admitted the motorcycle could have left 40-foot skid marks with perfectly dry brakes. Honda introduced evidence that the brake pads contacted the discs constantly and would have rubbed dry in about 125 feet. Calhoun did not present evidence showing otherwise. The jury found for Calhoun, but the judge ruled for Honda, reasoning that Klein had no basis for opining that the brakes were wet when the accident occurred, meaning Calhoun failed to prove the brake defect caused the collision. Calhoun appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Keith, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.