Consumer Welfare. Isuzu Motors America, Inc, does not warn its customers of the danger of riding unrestrained in the cargo beds of its pickup trucks. Seventeen-year-old Donald Josue was riding unrestrained in the bed of an Isuzu truck driven by Iaone

Question

Frias. When Frias lost control of the truck, it struck a concrete center divider. Josue was ejected and his consequent injuries rendered him a paraplegic. Josue filed a suit in a Hawaii state court against Isuzu, asserting a variety of legal claims based on its failure to warn of the danger of riding in the bed of the truck. Should Isuzu be held liable for Josue's injuries? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Consumer welfare
On the defendants' motions, the court issued two summary judgment orders, effectively dismissing the case. The court reasoned in part that riding unrestrained in the bed of a pickup truck is "an open and obvious danger as a matter of law, and the manufacturer of a pickup truck is not under a duty to warn potential passengers and users of [this] obvious danger." The plaintiffs appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The state supreme court held that "the dangers of riding unrestrained in an open cargo bed of a pickup truck are obvious and generally known to the ordinary user and that therefore Isuzu had no duty to warn potential passengers of those dangers." The court explained that "it should be readily apparent and patently obvious to a passenger who chooses to ride in the bed of a pickup truck that he or she is completely unrestrained and unprotected from being ejected from the bed in an accident."