Recent photos by Honda Motorcycle company showing crash tests of a Gold Wing fitted with an air bag reminded me of the 1995 case holding that it was negligent to make and sell a motorcycle without leg guards. In that case, Satcher v. Honda Motor Company, a Federal Court in Mississippi reasoned: "A product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user when it has a propensity or a tendency for causing physical harm beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user having ordinary knowledge of a product's characteristics known to the foreseeable class of persons who would normally use the product. Acting under that instruction, the jury found for Satcher, necessarily finding that the ordinary user would not contemplate the full propensity or tendency of the lack of leg guards to cause physical harm. To be sure, users know that motorcycles are dangerous, and they know that the absence of leg guards might add to the chances of harm. This jury could find, however, that Honda's motorcycles were more likely to cost the rider a leg than the ordinary rider would contemplate. The evidence reflects experience with motorcycle injuries beyond the contemplation of the ordinary rider. Since the jury found for Satcher on this issue, it is immaterial whether the utility of the motorcycle without guards would weigh less than that danger. Satcher prevailed on the first step and need not be concerned with the second step, and a retrial to submit the second step cannot be justified. " Even though police bikes are routinely fitted with leg guards, I have to admit that I don't like the idea of them, and I can think of a lot of situations where the leg guards could cause an injury. I like the idea of air bags better, but I saw similar issues with the Honda air bags. For example, it looked like they repositioned the controls for the testing, so the air bag wouldn't pull the rider's hands off the bars as the air bag hit him in the chest. Crashworthiness for motorcycles is an inevitable trend in the law, however. The doctrine of crashworthiness says that if you know your product will be used to crash, and that it is therefore a foreseeable use of the product, then you have a duty to design for that foreseeable use. A bike that has a protruding part, for example, would not be as crashworthy as a bike that did not have such a protruding part. I think about this issue in a slightly different context, when I see riders with bags around their necks. Obviously, if the strap of one of these bags catches when the rider goes down, it could break the rider's neck. From a manufacturer's standpoint, some of the big bikes are designed to go over in a parking lot with minimal damage. If design can minimize injury to the bike, why not to the rider? I wonder how long it will be before this issue becomes a real battlefield, with riders concerned about overkill in crashworthiness design that could interfere with the fun of riding? It seems certain that it won't be forever. | 
