70

his

part ,

but because of the operating characteristics

inherent in the design of this vehicle .

We believed that John

McKinley was a rider of ordinary skill , riding this 3 - wheeler in

an

mann

an ordinary manner , and that his inability to control the movement of the vehicle was an ordinary , predictable ,

foreseeable consequence that faces everyone who attempts to ride

this product .

From Honda , during preparation for trial , we learned that

only a few

other cases ,

involving claims that the rider was

injured when he was unable to control the direction of movement of the vehicle , had been filed prior to ours . As trial

n

ours

preparation went on , we also learned

from other sources , that

the cases which had been filed against Honda ( at that time we

were not interested in accidents involving products of any other

were I

te

es

manufacturer ) were only the tip of the iceberg .

From various

sources , some difficult to pin down , we began to hear that there

were many , many instances of serious injury and death

occurring

to persons riding these vehicles .

We

initially

contacted the consumer

Products

Safety

Commission appproximately one and one - half years prior

to our

trial .

At that time , we learned that the Commission ' s

only

official activity was a formal investigation of a complaint from

the parents of a young boy in Louisiana who had been killed as the result of an alleged malfunction of a throttle on a 3 - wheeled vehicle . The Commission ' s conclusion from that investigation

an

apparently was that there was no cause for action on its part .

( The Committee may be interested in knowing that trial of that case in Louisiana resulted in a verdict in favor of the family