## Facts

- Thomas R. Laing used a Honda three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on his farm to inspect cotton fields.
- While riding on a farm path, Laing encountered a large clod of dirt and suffered a severe traumatic brain injury; there were no eyewitnesses.
- Laing was in a coma for about two months and had no memory of the accident.
- Laing and the ATV were found roughly 20–30 yards from the clod; physical evidence included ATV tracks leading to the clod and an apparent impact to the clod’s top.
- The parties’ reconstructions differed: plaintiffs contended Laing attempted to avoid the clod and the ATV flipped at about 15–25 mph; defendants contended Laing struck or rode over the clod at about 35 mph, went airborne, and lost control.
- Laing and his wife sued the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer, alleging the three-wheeled ATV was unreasonably dangerous in design and due to inadequate warnings for normal farm use.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding defense expert testimony comparing the risk of ATV riding to other activities (e.g., snowmobiling, go-carts, bungee jumping).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the ATV was unreasonably dangerous for normal farm use and that the product’s design and warnings caused Laing’s injuries.
3. Whether alleged errors in jury instructions, allocation of fault, or the damages award required reversal or modification.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding comparative-risk testimony because it had limited probative value and a substantial likelihood of confusing the jury.
- The record supported the jury’s findings on unreasonable danger, causation, and warning adequacy despite conflicting expert testimony and the absence of eyewitness testimony.
- The defendants failed to show reversible error in the jury instructions, other rulings, or the damages award under the applicable deferential standards of review.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary rulings; expert evidence may be excluded when its probative value is marginal and it is likely to confuse the jury by introducing collateral comparisons.
- In products liability claims alleging unreasonable danger (including design and warning theories), juries may weigh competing expert testimony and physical evidence to determine defect, causation, and adequacy of warnings.
- Appellate review of jury fact-finding in Louisiana is highly deferential; a verdict supported by a reasonable view of the evidence will not be disturbed absent manifest error.
- A defendant’s reliance on user misconduct or warnings will not defeat liability where the factfinder reasonably concludes the product’s dangerous characteristics and inadequate warnings were substantial contributing causes of the injury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict finding a three-wheeled ATV unreasonably dangerous for normal farm use and sustained the trial court’s exclusion of a defense “comparative risk” study, concluding the challenged evidentiary and trial rulings were within the court’s discretion and the jury’s determinations were not manifestly erroneous.


Laing v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 628 So. 2d 196 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993)