Horst v. Deere & Co.

Two-year-old Jonathan Horst was playing in his yard as his father, Michael Horst (plaintiff), was mowing the yard with his John Deere riding lawn mower. Michael pushed a button on the mower that overrode the mower’s no-mow-in-reverse safety feature so that he could mow a stretch of the lawn in reverse. While the mower mowed in reverse, it ran over Jonathan, amputating both of his feet. Michael and his wife, Kara (plaintiff), sued Deere & Co. (defendant) on behalf of themselves and Jonathan (plaintiff), alleging strict products liability and negligence. The Horsts claimed Deere’s lawn mower design was dangerous because it allowed a button push to override the no-mow-in-reverse safety feature. Deere argued the mower’s safety manual specifically cautioned against mowing in reverse and near young children. The Horsts asked the court to instruct the jury that the standard governing whether Deere’s design was unreasonably dangerous was whether the mower was dangerous beyond the contemplation of an ordinary bystander. The court instead instructed the jury on using the consumer-contemplation test, which deemed a product unreasonably dangerous if its potential hazards were beyond the expectations of an ordinary consumer. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Deere, finding that the mower was not defective and Jonathan’s injuries were due to Michael and Kara’s negligence in supervising him. The state appellate court affirmed. The Horsts appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, alleging that the jury instruction was improper because a bystander-contemplation test, rather than the traditional consumer-contemplation test, applied if bystanders claim injuries due to products that pose unique risks to bystanders.