## Facts

- Two boys, each nearly nine years old, were seriously injured while riding a Honda mini-trail bike on a public roadway.
- The boys rode through three stop signs without stopping and collided with a truck while looking back at other children chasing them on another mini-trail bike.
- The boys’ parents (motorcyclists) bought the mini-trail bikes and instructed their children never to operate them on public streets or roads.
- The bike displayed a prominent label stating it was manufactured for off-road use only and should not be operated on public streets, roads, or highways.
- The owner’s manual contained similar instructions and emphasized parental responsibility to review the manual with child operators.
- The injured children (through guardians) sued the manufacturer and related entities for strict products liability, negligence (including failure to warn), breach of warranties, and product misrepresentation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the complaints; the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the mini-trail bike was defective and not reasonably safe under Washington strict liability law when the injury resulted from street use contrary to explicit warnings.
2. Whether the manufacturer’s warnings were inadequate as a matter of law for failing to describe specific dangers of traffic or provide parental guidance on a child’s readiness to operate the bike.
3. Whether advertising or other representations created actionable product misrepresentation or express/implied warranties of safety for the use that led to the accident.
4. Whether Washington law should impose a heightened or effectively absolute manufacturer responsibility for injuries to child users despite clear warnings and misuse.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturer.
- The court held the mini-trail bike was not defective or unreasonably dangerous under the consumer-expectations standard.
- The court held the warnings were legally adequate and satisfied any duty to warn in negligence and strict liability.
- The court rejected misrepresentation and warranty theories for lack of actionable representations tied to the accident and use at issue.
- The court declined to adopt a rule that would effectively make manufacturers of mini-trail bikes absolutely liable for user injuries.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington strict products liability, a product is defective and not reasonably safe only if it is unsafe to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer.
- A manufacturer’s duty to warn is satisfied by clear, conspicuous warnings that address the specific misuse that caused the injury; warnings need not catalog every possible consequence where the hazard is obvious.
- Foreseeable misuse does not make a manufacturer an insurer; clear warnings against a specific dangerous use may defeat claims premised on that prohibited use.
- Product misrepresentation and warranty claims require evidence of actionable representations (and related reliance/causation or warranty scope) supporting liability for the particular use leading to injury.
- Broad regulation or prohibition of a product category is for the legislature rather than judicial expansion of products-liability doctrine.

## Conclusion

Because the injuries resulted from operating an off-road mini-trail bike on public roads in direct violation of prominent warnings and parental instructions, and because the product was not unreasonably dangerous under ordinary consumer expectations, the court affirmed dismissal of all claims against the manufacturer.


Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash. 2d 127, 727 P.2d 655 (Wash. 1986)