design defect claim in California

2021CACI No. 1204; see also Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 561 .) Under either test, causation measured by the substantial factor test is a separate element of a design defect claim.

2021CACI No. 1204; see also Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 561 .) Under either test, causation measured by the substantial factor test is a separate element of a design defect claim.

2013Soule holds that one of the factors a jury may consider in assessing a design defect claim is “the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design . . . .” (Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 562 .) Elsewhere, the California Supreme Court has recognized “past design defect decisions demonstrate that, as a practical matter, in many instances it is simply impossible to eliminate the balancing or weighing of competing considerations in determining whether a product is defectively designed or not.” (Barker, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 433 .) Heeding the guidance of the California Supreme Court’s holdin

1991By that time, plaintiff had indicated that he was proceeding, as to defective design, only on the "consumer expectation" prong of the design defect test set out in Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 426 [ 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 573 P.2d 443 , 96 A.L.R.3d 1 ] (hereafter Barker ).

2026(Demara v. The Raymond Corp. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 545, 558 ; see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853 , 854–855 & fn. 23 [defendant does not meet burden on summary judgment simply by pointing out “‘absence of evidence to support’ an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action”].) On appeal, the S&S defendants do not dispute that the consumer expectation test is applicable or that they failed to meet their initial burden of negating the existence of a design defect under the test.6 The Katereloses sufficiently presented the 6 On appeal, the S&S defendants argue only that

2021(Demara, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 554 [“Under both the consumer expectation test and the risk-benefit test, in proving a cause of action for design defect, the plaintiff must establish that the product’s failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing the harm to the plaintiff”]; CACI Nos. 1203, 1204.)7 In holding Nissan liable under both strict liability design defect tests, the trial made a separate finding under both tests that “the design defect was a substantial factor in causing the subject Nissan 2000 Xterra to accelerate suddenly.” Taking Nissan at its word that its ch

2017It sought to examine the precise behavior of several obscure components of her car under the complex circumstances of a particular accident." ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 570 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) The court further reasoned that "ordinary experience and understanding [would not] inform such a consumer how safely an automobile's design should perform under the esoteric circumstances of the collision *158 at issue here," pointing out that expert testimony was required to explain the "complicated design considerations" at issue. 26 ( Ibid . ) Similarly, in Morson , supra , t

2017It sought to examine the precise behavior of several obscure components of her car under the complex circumstances of a particular accident." ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 570 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) The court further reasoned that "ordinary experience and understanding [would not] inform such a consumer how safely an automobile's design should perform under the esoteric circumstances of the collision *158 at issue here," pointing out that expert testimony was required to explain the "complicated design considerations" at issue. 26 ( Ibid . ) Similarly, in Morson , supra , t

2017(See Zagami , supra , 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092 , 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 235 ["A court reviewing a special verdict does not infer findings in favor of the prevailing party."].) Moreover, even if we could infer that the jury relied on the negligent failure to warn finding in considering the design defect claim, we already have determined that the negligent failure to warn verdict is fatally inconsistent with the strict liability failure to warn verdict, and that inconsistency would vitiate a finding of negligent design defect on a failure to warn theory.

2017(See Zagami , supra , 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092 , 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 235 ["A court reviewing a special verdict does not infer findings in favor of the prevailing party."].) Moreover, even if we could infer that the jury relied on the negligent failure to warn finding in considering the design defect claim, we already have determined that the negligent failure to warn verdict is fatally inconsistent with the strict liability failure to warn verdict, and that inconsistency would vitiate a finding of negligent design defect on a failure to warn theory.

2026(Ibid.) The appellate court held that the declarations were inadmissible because they “reflect[ed] the jurors’ subjective reasoning processes.” (Id. at p. 1126.) Similarly, in Ford v. Bennacka (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 330 , the plaintiff—who was injured in a motorcycle accident and received an adverse judgment on special verdict after a jury trial—filed a motion for new trial asserting jury misconduct in which he “submitted declarations of five jurors essentially asserting the jury confused the concepts of comparative negligence and preponderance of the evidence.” (Id. at p. 332, fn. omitted.) Th

2026(Demara v. The Raymond Corp. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 545, 558 ; see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853 , 854–855 & fn. 23 [defendant does not meet burden on summary judgment simply by pointing out “‘absence of evidence to support’ an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action”].) On appeal, the S&S defendants do not dispute that the consumer expectation test is applicable or that they failed to meet their initial burden of negating the existence of a design defect under the test.6 The Katereloses sufficiently presented the 6 On appeal, the S&S defendants argue only that

2024(Johnson v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 558, fn. 4 .) Scott v. Ford Motor Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492 (Scott) is instructive.

2024(Johnson, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 65; see Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 187 (Webb) [sophisticated user defense applies to both strict liability and negligent failure to warn claims].) By the same analysis, the sophisticated user defense applies to a design defect claim based on the consumer expectations test, as a sophisticated user may not claim to be an ordinary consumer.

2017Code, § 801, subd. (a) ), 'and would invite circumvention of the rule that the risks and benefits of a challenged design must be *160 carefully balanced whenever the issue of design defect goes beyond the common experience of the product's users.' " ( Mansur, supra , 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1375 , 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ; see Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 1370, fn. 6, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 9 ["The consumer expectation test applies only when the defect can be determined by common knowledge regarding minimum safety expectations, not where (as here) an expert must balance the benefi

2017Code, § 801, subd. (a) ), 'and would invite circumvention of the rule that the risks and benefits of a challenged design must be *160 carefully balanced whenever the issue of design defect goes beyond the common experience of the product's users.' " ( Mansur, supra , 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1375 , 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ; see Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 1370, fn. 6, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 9 ["The consumer expectation test applies only when the defect can be determined by common knowledge regarding minimum safety expectations, not where (as here) an expert must balance the benefi

2017In Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , the federal district court concluded that Bartlett 's holding did not extend to manufacturers of nonprescription drugs and therefore rejected the defendants' argument that federal law preempted the plaintiffs' claim that Children's Motrin was defectively designed. ( Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , 64 F.Supp.3d at p. 721 ; see also Hunt , supra , 6 F.Supp.3d at p. 704 [concluding the plaintiff's design defect claim regarding a non-prescription drug was not preempted under Bartlett ].) *153 Batoh disagreed with the conclusions of Brown v. Johnson & Jo

2017In Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , the federal district court concluded that Bartlett 's holding did not extend to manufacturers of nonprescription drugs and therefore rejected the defendants' argument that federal law preempted the plaintiffs' claim that Children's Motrin was defectively designed. ( Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , 64 F.Supp.3d at p. 721 ; see also Hunt , supra , 6 F.Supp.3d at p. 704 [concluding the plaintiff's design defect claim regarding a non-prescription drug was not preempted under Bartlett ].) *153 Batoh disagreed with the conclusions of Brown v. Johnson & Jo

2017In Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , the federal district court concluded that Bartlett 's holding did not extend to manufacturers of nonprescription drugs and therefore rejected the defendants' argument that federal law preempted the plaintiffs' claim that Children's Motrin was defectively designed. ( Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , 64 F.Supp.3d at p. 721 ; see also Hunt , supra , 6 F.Supp.3d at p. 704 [concluding the plaintiff's design defect claim regarding a non-prescription drug was not preempted under Bartlett ].) *153 Batoh disagreed with the conclusions of Brown v. Johnson & Jo

2017In Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , the federal district court concluded that Bartlett 's holding did not extend to manufacturers of nonprescription drugs and therefore rejected the defendants' argument that federal law preempted the plaintiffs' claim that Children's Motrin was defectively designed. ( Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , 64 F.Supp.3d at p. 721 ; see also Hunt , supra , 6 F.Supp.3d at p. 704 [concluding the plaintiff's design defect claim regarding a non-prescription drug was not preempted under Bartlett ].) *153 Batoh disagreed with the conclusions of Brown v. Johnson & Jo

2017In Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , the federal district court concluded that Bartlett 's holding did not extend to manufacturers of nonprescription drugs and therefore rejected the defendants' argument that federal law preempted the plaintiffs' claim that Children's Motrin was defectively designed. ( Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , 64 F.Supp.3d at p. 721 ; see also Hunt , supra , 6 F.Supp.3d at p. 704 [concluding the plaintiff's design defect claim regarding a non-prescription drug was not preempted under Bartlett ].) *153 Batoh disagreed with the conclusions of Brown v. Johnson & Jo

2017In Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , the federal district court concluded that Bartlett 's holding did not extend to manufacturers of nonprescription drugs and therefore rejected the defendants' argument that federal law preempted the plaintiffs' claim that Children's Motrin was defectively designed. ( Brown v. Johnson & Johnson , supra , 64 F.Supp.3d at p. 721 ; see also Hunt , supra , 6 F.Supp.3d at p. 704 [concluding the plaintiff's design defect claim regarding a non-prescription drug was not preempted under Bartlett ].) *153 Batoh disagreed with the conclusions of Brown v. Johnson & Jo

2017Code, § 801, subd. (a) ), 'and would invite circumvention of the rule that the risks and benefits of a challenged design must be *160 carefully balanced whenever the issue of design defect goes beyond the common experience of the product's users.' " ( Mansur, supra , 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1375 , 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ; see Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 1370, fn. 6, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 9 ["The consumer expectation test applies only when the defect can be determined by common knowledge regarding minimum safety expectations, not where (as here) an expert must balance the benefi

2017Code, § 801, subd. (a) ), 'and would invite circumvention of the rule that the risks and benefits of a challenged design must be *160 carefully balanced whenever the issue of design defect goes beyond the common experience of the product's users.' " ( Mansur, supra , 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1375 , 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ; see Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1363 , 1370, fn. 6, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 9 ["The consumer expectation test applies only when the defect can be determined by common knowledge regarding minimum safety expectations, not where (as here) an expert must balance the benefi

2009Foster Wheeler bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.” 3 Other courts have agreed with the Tate opinion: “It is also well established, however, that a defendant may not defeat a state failure-to-wam claim simply by establishing the elements of the government contractor defense with respect to a plaintiff’s design defect claim.” (Oliver v. Oshkosh Truck Corp. (7th Cir. 1996) 96 F.3d 992, 1003 ; see also Butler v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (9th Cir. 1996) 89 F.3d 582, 586 [“ ‘In a failure-to-wam action, where no conflict exists between requirements imposed under a federal cont