## Facts

- Garry Huffman operated a Caterpillar 561D pipelayer on steep ski slopes while installing snow-making equipment.
- The pipelayer’s hydraulic service brakes functioned only when the engine was running; when the engine was off, only mechanical (foot) brakes were available.
- Huffman positioned the pipelayer on a steep slope and shut off the engine, deactivating the hydraulic braking system.
- The machine slid downhill; witnesses saw Huffman pressing the brake pedals without stopping the slide.
- Huffman attempted to dismount, became entangled in the machine’s cable works, fell onto the tracks, and was fatally crushed.
- Evidence indicated that, after this model was manufactured, Caterpillar added spring-applied emergency brakes on later models that could operate with the engine off.
- Industry practice at ski areas included shutting off engines while working on slopes, making reliance on non-hydraulic braking foreseeable.
- The decedent’s widow brought a wrongful-death strict products-liability claim alleging a design defect: the absence of an emergency brake independent of engine power made the machine unreasonably dangerous on steep grades.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit a strict-liability design-defect claim to the jury that the pipelayer was unreasonably dangerous due to its braking design and lack of a spring-applied emergency brake.
2. Whether Colorado comparative-fault law allows “ordinary negligence” of the decedent to be compared against the manufacturer’s strict liability to reduce damages.
3. Whether the comparative-fault and strict-liability jury instructions conformed to Colorado law.
4. Whether rulings affecting damages and related trial matters required reversal and remand.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law for Caterpillar and held the design-defect claim was properly submitted to the jury.
- The court held the evidence supported findings of defect, unreasonable danger, and causation, including evidence of foreseeable operation on slopes with the engine off and feasibility of an engine-independent emergency brake.
- The court concluded Colorado law permits comparative fault in strict products-liability cases and allows the jury to consider the user’s negligent conduct in apportioning fault and reducing damages.
- The court reversed in part and remanded due to errors or inadequacies in jury instructions and/or damages-related rulings requiring further proceedings consistent with Colorado law.

## Legal Principles

- A product may be defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous when foreseeable use creates risks that outweigh the product’s utility, particularly where a feasible safer alternative design exists.
- Foreseeability may be shown through evidence of common industry practice and typical use conditions known or reasonably knowable to the manufacturer.
- Under Colorado comparative-fault principles, a plaintiff’s or decedent’s negligent conduct may be compared with a manufacturer’s strict products liability to reduce damages; the comparison is not limited to misuse or assumption of risk.
- Evidence that a manufacturer later adopted a safer design may be probative of feasibility and the risk-utility balance, subject to trial management and limiting rules.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit sustained the jury’s ability to find Caterpillar strictly liable for a braking-system design that could fail when the engine was shut off on steep slopes and confirmed that Colorado comparative fault allows reduction of strict-liability damages based on the user’s negligence, while remanding for correction of instructional and/or damages errors.


Huffman v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 908 F.2d 1470 (10th Cir. 1990)