Opinion ID: 7212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Impact of Prestage.

Text: 12 Honda argues that Prestage altered the analysis used in products cases, changing the focus away from consumer expectations for the product to whether the danger outweighs the utility of the product. Honda contends that the open and obvious nature of the danger is only one factor to consider, and that because the analysis now required is fundamentally different, Honda is entitled to a new trial. In effect, Honda argues that Prestage announced a new common law rule, and that new rule should be applied retroactively so as to afford Honda a right to a new trial. 13 Both the Mississippi Supreme Court and this court have held that Prestage did not change the law. Prestage concluded that in prior decisions the Mississippi Supreme Court has clearly moved away from a 'consumer expectations' analysis and has moved towards 'risk-utility.'  617 So.2d at 253. It purported to apply a risk-utility analysis adopted in earlier decisions. Id. at 253. On rehearing the first appeal in our case, we explained that Prestage held that contrary to prior Fifth Circuit opinions and this panel's opinion in the instant case, Mississippi applies a 'risk-utility' analysis in products liability cases and has done so since 1987. 993 F.2d at 57. We are not in a position to contradict the Mississippi Supreme Court's own conclusion, as well as that of our own panel, that Prestage did not change Mississippi law. It is true, however, that from the perspective of the parties in this case Prestage has changed the Fifth Circuit's reading of Mississippi law in that the patent danger of a product is not a bar to recovery. That change is not in Honda's favor, nor does it mean that Honda was prejudiced by the law under which this case was tried. 14 The Mississippi court has explained to us in Prestage that the risk-utility analysis of the danger of a product is the analysis to be used, rather than that of only consumer expectations. Again, this modification of our understanding of Mississippi law does not help Honda in this case, and it will not justify affording Honda a new trial. The modification adds strings to the bow of the plaintiff, not the defendant. In the words of the Prestage court: 15 [E]ven if a plaintiff appreciates the danger of a product, he can still recover for any injury resulting from that danger provided that the utility of the product is outweighed by the danger that the product creates. 16 617 So.2d at 254. 17 In the trial of this case the jury was instructed that Satcher's product liability claim depended upon his proving that the product was in a defective condition making it unreasonably dangerous to the user. It was then explained to the jury: 18 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. 19 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.