risk-benefit test in Colorado

2015This is merely a rephrasing of the consumer expectation test. ¶20        In Camacho , the supreme court repeated Ortho ’s seven-factor risk-benefit test, 741 P.2d at 1245 , and said, “[t]he factors enumerated in Ortho are applicable to the determination of what constitutes a product that is in a defective unreasonably dangerous condition.†Id. at 1248 . ¶21        Camacho also dictates that a multi-factor risk-benefit test be used in product liability cases, id . at 1245 (“Any test . . . to determine whether a particular product is or is not actionable must consider s

2015This is merely a rephrasing of the consumer expectation test. ¶20        In Camacho , the supreme court repeated Ortho ’s seven-factor risk-benefit test, 741 P.2d at 1245 , and said, “[t]he factors enumerated in Ortho are applicable to the determination of what constitutes a product that is in a defective unreasonably dangerous condition.†Id. at 1248 . ¶21        Camacho also dictates that a multi-factor risk-benefit test be used in product liability cases, id . at 1245 (“Any test . . . to determine whether a particular product is or is not actionable must consider s

2015Cf. Armentrout , 842 P.2d at 184 (“Depending on the circumstances of each case, flexibility is necessary to decide which factors are to be applied, and the list of factors mentioned in Ortho and Camacho may be expanded or contracted as needed.â€). ¶22        Thus, Camacho indicates that the consumer expectation test survived Ortho , but only as one factor among the many listed in the risk-benefit test.

1993See Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 182 (Colo.1992) (crane oiler injured by rotating upper part of a crane had the burden of proving the unreasonable dangerousness of the product “using the risk-benefit analysis”); Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, supra (prescription drugs); Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., supra (leg guards on a motorcycle).

1993See Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 182 (Colo.1992) (crane oiler injured by rotating upper part of a crane had the burden of proving the unreasonable dangerousness of the product “using the risk-benefit analysis”); Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, supra (prescription drugs); Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., supra (leg guards on a motorcycle).

1993In Hiigel , we defined defect in the context of a failure-to-warn claim and stated that the duty of the manufacturer is “to appropriately label the" product giving due consideration to the likelihood of accident and the seriousness of consequences from failure-to-warn.” Hiigel , 190 Colo, at 63, 544 P.2d at 988 . 11 The Hiigel standard, which weighs the likelihood of an accident with the seriousness of the harm, is similar to the risk-benefit test that we adopted for design-defect cases in Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath, 722 P.2d 410 (Colo.1986), overruled on other grounds by Armentrout v

1993We adopted the risk-benefit test as set out in the California case of Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 573 P.2d 443 (1978).

1993We adopted the risk-benefit test as set out in the California case of Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 573 P.2d 443 (1978).

2015See Kokins v. Teleflex , Inc ., 621 F.3d 1290, 1296 (10th Cir. 2010); Montag v. Honda Motor Co. , 75 F.3d 1414 , 1419 (10th Cir. 1996).

2015See Kokins v. Teleflex , Inc ., 621 F.3d 1290, 1296 (10th Cir. 2010); Montag v. Honda Motor Co. , 75 F.3d 1414 , 1419 (10th Cir. 1996).

2015See 941 P.2d at 287 (concluding that consumer expectation and risk-benefit tests “are not mutually exclusive†and that a trial court “should review each [test] to determine if it is an appropriate standard for judging the dangerous nature of the product at issueâ€).

2015See Forma Scientific , 960 P.2d at 112 ; Barton v. Adams Rental, Inc. , 938 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1997); Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton , 845 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1993); Armentrout , 842 P.2d 175 ; Schmutz v. Bolles , 800 P.2d 1307, 1316 (Colo. 1990). ¶24        Other than Biosera , White , 867 P.2d at 105-06 , decided by a division of this court, is the only post- Camacho Colorado state appellate decision that discusses both tests.

2015Id.

2015See Forma Scientific , 960 P.2d at 112 ; Barton v. Adams Rental, Inc. , 938 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1997); Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton , 845 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1993); Armentrout , 842 P.2d 175 ; Schmutz v. Bolles , 800 P.2d 1307, 1316 (Colo. 1990). ¶24        Other than Biosera , White , 867 P.2d at 105-06 , decided by a division of this court, is the only post- Camacho Colorado state appellate decision that discusses both tests.

2015See Forma Scientific , 960 P.2d at 112 ; Barton v. Adams Rental, Inc. , 938 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1997); Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton , 845 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1993); Armentrout , 842 P.2d 175 ; Schmutz v. Bolles , 800 P.2d 1307, 1316 (Colo. 1990). ¶24        Other than Biosera , White , 867 P.2d at 105-06 , decided by a division of this court, is the only post- Camacho Colorado state appellate decision that discusses both tests.

2000See Duran v. Superior Court, 162 Ariz. 206 , 782 P.2d 324 (Ariz.App.1989); State v. D.T.M., 78 Wash.App. 216 , 896 P.2d 108 (1995).

2000See Duran v. Superior Court, 162 Ariz. 206 , 782 P.2d 324 (Ariz.App.1989); State v. D.T.M., 78 Wash.App. 216 , 896 P.2d 108 (1995).