Opinion ID: 177197
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Primarily Technical and Scientific Information

Text: Appellants also contend that the district court erred in instructing the jury concerning the risk-benefit test in any event because the case does not involve primarily technical and scientific information. In that regard, Appellants assert: Although the case does involve some technical and scientific information, an ordinary person can form reasonable expectations regarding the dangerous risks posed by the cable and the efficacy of alternative designs. Aplt. Reply Br. at 11 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7 (Plaintiffs have never argued that this case does not involve some technical and scientific information. (emphasis added)). We discern no error. To assess this argument we must look to Colorado cases to see which products they have deemed to involve primarily technical and scientific information. We have already reviewed Camacho, in which the Colorado Supreme Court found that the feasibility of installing leg guards on a motorcycle was defined primarily by technical and scientific information because manufacturers of such complex products as motor vehicles invariably have greater access than do ordinary consumers to the information necessary to reach informed decisions concerning the efficacy of potential safety measures. 741 P.2d at 1247. In Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., the direct predecessor to Camacho, the Colorado Supreme Court found that the dangerousness of an oral contraceptive was defined primarily by technical and scientific information. 722 P.2d at 414. The court determined that the plaintiff's claim that her estrogen dose was too high could not be resolved without balancing the risks and benefits of the chemical composition of the drug. Id. As three Justices later described it, the Ortho court reasoned that [a] consumer of drugs cannot realistically be expected to foresee dangers in prescribed drugs which even scientists find to be complex and unpredictable. Camacho, 741 P.2d at 1251 (Vollack, J., dissenting). In Armentrout, a crane oiler sued the crane manufacturer to recover for injuries that he suffered when he was trapped in a pinch point between moving parts of the crane. See 842 P.2d at 178. In discussing the legal principles governing design-defect claims in Colorado, the court noted that [t]he instruction given by the trial court incorporate[d] the rule that whether a product is `unreasonably dangerous' is to be determined under a risk-benefit analysis. Id. at 182. See also White, 867 P.2d at 105-06 (holding that the trial court erred by instructing the jury under the consumer expectation test, rather than under the risk-benefit test, where a truck driver alleged that his gasoline-delivery truck exploded due to a defectively designed engine). In light of these cases, we conclude that this case primarily involved technical and scientific information. In particular, there was testimony of this sort about the steering cable, its manufacture and design, the measures taken to keep water from entering its inner core, the possible avenues of entry for water into the core, and the chemical and physical properties of two different kinds of steel. Even if this information was not as technical and scientific as the level of estrogen found in the oral contraceptive at issue in Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., it seems that the design of the steering cable was at least as technical and scientificif not more sothan the design of a motorcycle without leg guards in Camacho or the design of a crane with a dangerous pinch point in Armentrout. Although common knowledge of rust may have aided the jury's understanding of the issues, both parties proffered technical and scientific evidence from various expert witnesses. Indeed, Appellants themselves called as witnesses two boat mechanics, see Aplt.App. at 159-60, 316-17, a mechanical engineer, see id. at 219-20, and a forensic engineer and a metallurgist, see id. at 268-69. Appellants' arguments appear to tacitly acknowledge that the issue for the jury's consideration was one of a technical and scientific nature. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 7 (Plaintiffs' experts testified that it would be foreseeable to any engineer that water would likely enter the carbon steel core in a marine environment and cause corrosion. (emphasis added)). Thus, we hold that the district court did not commit error in determining that, if it concluded that the case involved primarily technical and scientific information, then it was required to instruct the jury only in accordance with the risk-benefit test. Nor do we believe that the district court erred in concluding that this case involved primarily technical and scientific information.