Opinion ID: 1194701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: crashworthiness claim against cessna

Text: Idaho courts have applied the doctrine of crashworthiness to automobiles. The doctrine stems from the foreseeable likelihood that in the normal course of operation an automobile may be involved in a collision. Under that doctrine, it is a manufacturer's duty to design and manufacture its product so as to eliminate unreasonable risks of foreseeable injury in the event of a collision or other impact. Farmer v. International Harvester Company, 97 Idaho 742, 751, 553 P.2d 1306, 1315 (1976). The evidence must show that the defect enhanced or intensified the injuries received rather than caused the accident itself. See, Annotation 42 A.L.R. 3d 560 (1972). The trial court correctly dismissed Johnsons' crashworthiness claims for the reason the record establishes no facts giving rise to a plausible showing that any part of their injuries were enhanced or intensified by the aircraft's design and that their allegations regarding lack of crashworthiness were merely conclusory. In summary, we rule as follows: with regard to Brent and Cynthia Dyer's personal injury claims, Johnsons' wrongful death claims against Pischke, and appellants' claim against Cessna based on lack of crashworthiness, we affirm the trial court. As to Johnsons' wrongful death claims against defendant Cessna, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to be borne one-third each by the Dyers, Johnsons, and Cessna. No attorney fees awarded. DONALDSON, C.J., BISTLINE, J., and McFADDEN, J. Pro Tem., concur. BAKES, J. concurs in I and IIA, and concurs in the result on IIB and III.