In a published opinion, the Appellate Division has sided with Honda Motor Co. by rejecting a claim that a car's lack of safety features constitutes a violation of the New Jersey Products Liability Act.

The precedential ruling in Berkoski v. Honda Motor was issued Thursday by a unanimous three-judge panel. The ruling affirms the lower court's decision to toss the case on summary judgment.

The dispute stemmed from a 2018 motor vehicle accident that claimed the life of Elizabeth MacNamara, who was driving a Honda CR-V on a two-lane road in Cape May, according to the opinion. MacNamara’s vehicle crossed the center line, causing a head-on collision with Dr. Ann Ramage and killing both drivers. Ramage’s estate alleged that the CR-V was defectively designed because it was not equipped with a lane departure warning and lane-keeping assist systems. The Appellate Division held that the absence of driver-assistance systems does not meet the definition of defective design under the New Jersey Products Liability Act.

“Given the specific facts of this case, we hold that Honda was not under a duty to provide the [lane departure warning] and [lane-keeping assist] systems, which were not uniformly installed in all 2016 passenger vehicles,” Judge Robert J. Gilson said.

Ramage’s husband, Richard T. Berkoski, filed suit in April 2020 in Camden County Superior Court as the administrator for Ramage’s estate against Honda of Turnersville and John MacNamara, the administrator of Elizabeth’s estate. The trial court dismissed all claims except for strict product liability and negligence against Honda, according to the opinion.

Berkoski presented expert reports from a design expert, Peter J. Leiss, and a causation expert, Shawn Harrington. Leiss’ report said that the two safety systems were available and economically feasible technologies that could have been added to the 2016 Honda CR-V and that omitting them rendered the vehicle unsafe. Harrington tested the performance of the lane departure warning and lane-keeping assist systems and concluded that the crash would not have occurred if they had been installed in MacNamara’s vehicle.

After discovery, Honda moved for summary judgment, arguing that the 2016 CR-V was not defectively designed and it had no duty to equip every vehicle with all available technologies. The automaker further alleged that the plaintiff’s experts should be excluded as their hypotheses were improper net opinions, Gilson said.

“The trial court reasoned that a manufacturer's duty is to provide a reasonably fit, suitable, and safe product, and that manufacturers do not have a duty to install every available technology,” Gilson said. “The court then held that plaintiff was required to show that the absence of the available technologies rendered the vehicle unsafe.”

The trial court granted summary judgment to Honda and dismissed all claims with prejudice. On appeal, Berkoski argued that the trial court erred and that the court did not reach the causation issue. He also alleged that he presented enough evidence to show that the safety systems would have prevented the collision, according to the opinion.

“Plaintiff's experts acknowledged that both the [lane departure warning] and [lane-keeping assist] systems were aids designed to help a driver stay within their intended lane of travel,” Gilson said. “It is undisputable, however, that the driver could not rely exclusively on those aids.”

Gilson concluded that Berkoski made no showing that the Honda MacNamara was driving was unsafe because it did not have those systems. However, he acknowledged that they may have aided her in driving.

“Indeed, to accept plaintiff's design defect argument would be to impose on all purchasers and users of passenger vehicles the requirement and cost of having the [lane departure warning] and [lane-keeping assist] systems installed and activated in their vehicles,” Gilson said.

On the issue of causation, Gilson said that the record on that subject was not fully developed. Therefore, the Appellate Division did not rule on the issue.

Gilson was joined in his opinion by Judges Lisa A. Firko and Avis Bishop-Thompson.

Counsel to Honda, Wendy F. Lumish, Executive Managing Partner with Bowman and Brooke, said in a statement to the Law Journal, that the opinion “is an important precedent reaffirming critical product liability principles in the emerging area of ADAS technology litigation.”

“We are pleased with the court’s decision and hope that it provides guidance to any other court that considers this important issue,” said Honda’s lead counsel Paul Cereghini, Firm Chair of Bowman and Brooke.

Berkoski was represented by Timothy J. Foley of Foley & Foley, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.