## Facts

- Richard Lee Calhoun was injured when, while riding a Honda 750 CB motorcycle to work in Kentucky, he struck the rear of a stopped tractor-trailer.
- There were no eyewitnesses, and Calhoun could not recall the accident due to his injuries.
- A state trooper observed approximately forty feet of skid marks leading to the point of impact.
- About thirty minutes before the crash, Calhoun had ridden through a car wash; it had not rained that day.
- Calhoun sued the motorcycle’s manufacturer and distributor under Kentucky strict products liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A), alleging a design defect in the rear brake system—poor wet braking performance.
- Calhoun relied heavily on a pre-accident recall letter stating that rear brake pad performance could be reduced in heavy rain, increasing stopping distance; Honda’s testing and remedial measure (grooving pads to channel water) addressed reduced braking efficiency in heavy rain conditions.
- At trial, the district court admitted the recall letter over objection, and the jury returned a verdict for Calhoun.
- Post-trial, the district court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Honda for failure to establish a prima facie strict-liability case and conditionally granted a new trial based on alleged evidentiary error in admitting the recall letter.
- Calhoun appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under Kentucky strict products liability law to permit a reasonable jury to find that an alleged rear brake defect was a proximate cause of the collision.
2. Whether admitting the manufacturer’s recall letter was erroneous and, if so, warranted a new trial (in light of the JNOV).

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of JNOV to Honda.
- The court held Calhoun failed to present non-speculative evidence that the alleged defect proximately caused the accident.
- Because JNOV was affirmed, the court did not need to order a new trial based on the recall-letter ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under Kentucky strict products liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A), a plaintiff must prove (1) a defective condition unreasonably dangerous and (2) that the defect was a proximate cause of the injury.
- Proof of causation must be based on evidence permitting a reasonable inference; conjecture is insufficient even in strict liability.
- Recall evidence may support an inference of a product issue in general, but it does not by itself establish that the issue manifested under the accident’s conditions or that it caused the specific injury.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit set aside the plaintiff’s jury verdict and upheld JNOV because the record—marked by no eyewitnesses, the plaintiff’s lack of memory, skid marks suggesting braking, and accident conditions not matching the recall’s “heavy rain” scenario—did not support a non-speculative finding that a rear brake design defect caused the collision.


Calhoun v. Honda Motor Co., 738 F.2d 126 (6th Cir. 1984)