On January 2, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division held that a vehicle, which is otherwise safe and fit for driving, is not defectively designed within the meaning of the New Jersey Products Liability Act if it does not include the latest driver-assistance technologies—features not mandated by federal or state law.
Background
Litigation against automobile, trucking and transportation companies centering around allegations that these companies failed to equip motor vehicles with certain "collision mitigation systems" (CMS) is on the rise. CMS technologies are advanced electronic systems designed to assist a driver in mitigating the likelihood of accidents and the effects of accidents. Common examples include automatic emergency braking, forward collision warning, lane departure warning and lane keep assist.
Each system is a separate, highly technical system designed to aid a driver in specific circumstances. However, these systems do not represent full automation, do not operate a vehicle for a driver and are designed as systems to assist an alert and attentive driver. Lawsuits generally allege that the absence of CMS technologies in the vehicle makes it defective or unreasonably dangerous.
These cases can be defended in various ways, including by challenging the premise of the claim that a vehicle is unsafe if it is not equipped with every potential safety option or feature.
The Berkoski Decision
In Berkoski v. Honda Motor Company, LTD., et. al., 2025 WL 15208 (Super. Ct. N.J. App. Div. 2025), plaintiff brought claims against Honda that its 2016 CR-V was defective because it was not equipped with lane departure warning (LDW) and lane keeping assist (LKA). The underlying accident involved a 2016 CR-V that crossed the center line and struck an oncoming vehicle. LDW and LKA were available options on CR-Vs in 2016, but not mandatory.
Plaintiff's experts opined that LDW or LKA could have prevented the underlying accident by alerting the driver before the CR-V crossed the center line, or by keeping the CR-V in its lane of travel. But the same experts agreed that the CR-V complied with all motor vehicle safety standards, that LDW/LKA are not required by law, and that the vehicle had a working steering system that allowed the driver to control the vehicle. On this record, the trial court granted summary judgment to Honda and the appeals court affirmed. The court found that a vehicle without all available driver-assistance technologies is not as a matter of law defectively designed, so long as it is otherwise safe and fit for driving (such as having a functioning steering system). The court ruled that:
We do not read the [Products Liability] Act as allowing plaintiff to claim a design defect merely because there were available driver-assistance technologies. Plaintiff has made no showing that the 2016 Honda CR-V was unsafe because it did not have either or both the LDW and LKA systems. Those systems might have aided [the driver], but they did not replace the obvious expectation among consumers that a 2016 motor vehicle required steering. Given the specific facts of this case, we hold that Honda was not under a duty to provide the LDW and LKA systems, which were not uniformly installed in all 2016 passenger vehicles. Indeed, to accept plaintiff's design defect argument would be to impose on all purchasers and users of passenger vehicles the requirement and cost of having the LDW and LKA systems installed and activated in their vehicles.
Implications
The Berkoski decision makes clear the importance of developing a record focused on driver responsibility and how a vehicle is safe without optional CMS or advanced driver-assistance system features. The court noted its ruling was record-based, including the specific technologies, the driver's vehicle control with those features and the vehicle's working steering system. That record allowed the court to conclude that the absence of optional driver-assistance features did not render the vehicle unreasonably dangerous under New Jersey products liability law because an ordinary consumer is aware of a need to control a vehicle and maintain control within the lane of travel. This highlights the importance of thoughtful planning and preparation for key depositions of the driver, law enforcement and plaintiff experts. Further, it is persuasive that this technology is not required by law.
Looking ahead, this opinion will provide important guidance within New Jersey and joins a trend of other federal courts in Kansas and Oklahoma who similarly rejected duties to mandate this technology. Butler v. Daimler Trucks N.A., LLC, 2022 WL 2191755 (D. Kan. June 16, 2022), aff'd,74 F.4th 1131 (10th Cir. 2023); Youngberg v. General Motors, LLC, 2022 WL 3925272 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 24, 2022), aff'd 2023 WL 7126422 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2023).
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Harry M. Byrne, Alyson Walker Lotman, Robert P. Good II, any of the attorneys in our Transportation, Automotive and Logistics Industry Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.
