Pietrone v. American Honda Motor Co.
California Court of Appeal
189 Cal. App. 3d 1057 (1987)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Alison Pietrone (plaintiff) was riding behind her husband on a motorcycle. The rear wheel of the motorcycle had exposed spokes and was very close to the foot pegs where passengers placed their feet. An oncoming car made a U-turn in front of Pietrone and her husband. The car’s bumper hit Pietrone’s left leg, breaking it. Pietrone was unable to control her broken leg. Pietrone’s left foot got caught in the spokes of the motorcycle’s rear wheel, then lodged in front of the shock absorber. Pietrone’s foot remained pinned until firemen cut away the motorcycle’s shock absorber using the “jaws of life.” As a result of these injuries, Pietrone’s left leg had to be amputated below the knee. Pietrone sued the maker of the motorcycle, American Honda Motor Co. (Honda) (defendant). At trial, Pietrone presented evidence that a design feature of the motorcycle was the proximate cause of her injury. Specifically, the motorcycle’s open, exposed spokes on the rear wheel caused the amputation of Pietrone’s foot. Honda moved for a directed verdict. Honda argued that Pietrone had failed to make out a prima facie case for strict product liability because she failed to present any evidence with regard to how the motorcycle could have been more safely designed to prevent injuries like her own. The trial court denied Honda’s motion for a directed verdict. The jury found in favor of Pietrone. Honda appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gates, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.