consumer expectation test in California

2026(Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1233 .) “Under the consumer expectation test, a product is defective in design if it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, or have a right to expect, when using the product in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. [Citations.] Because this test applies in cases in which jurors can evaluate a product’s safety design based on ‘the everyday experience of the product’s users’ [citation], the crucial question is 3 whether the circumstances of the product’s failure may properly permit ‘an inferenc

2026However, it does not follow that the consumer expectations test applies here. “[T]he consumer expectations test does not apply merely because the consumer states that he or she did not expect to be injured by the product.” (Trejo, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 159 .) In most, if not all, cases in which a consumer is injured by a product, the injury is unexpected; as a consequence, if an unexpected injury or occurrence alone were enough, “the consumer expectation test always would apply and every product would be found to have a design defect.” (Id. at p. 159.) Far from suggesting this, the Supre

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2017The Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment Based on a Lack of Causation 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 harm to the plaintiff. ( Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112 , 119, 184 Cal.Rptr. 891 , 649 P.2d 224 [risk-benefit test], 126 [consumer expectation test] ( Campbell ); CACI Nos. 1203 [consumer expectation test], 1204 [risk-benefit test]; see generally Rutherford v. Owens-Illi

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2026(Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1233 .) “Under the consumer expectation test, a product is defective in design if it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, or have a right to expect, when using the product in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. [Citations.] Because this test applies in cases in which jurors can evaluate a product’s safety design based on ‘the everyday experience of the product’s users’ [citation], the crucial question is 3 whether the circumstances of the product’s failure may properly permit ‘an inferenc

2020In such cases, a lay jury is competent to make that determination.” (Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 569 .) This can be so even where a product is “complex.” “ ‘[A] complex product “may perform so unsafely that the defect is apparent to the common reason, experience, and understanding of its ordinary consumers.” ’ ” (Mansur v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1374 (Mansur), quoting Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1232 (Saller).) However, where the “plaintiff’s theory of defect seeks to examine the behavior of ‘obscure components under complex circums

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

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2020In such cases, a lay jury is competent to make that determination.” (Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 569 .) This can be so even where a product is “complex.” “ ‘[A] complex product “may perform so unsafely that the defect is apparent to the common reason, experience, and understanding of its ordinary consumers.” ’ ” (Mansur v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1374 (Mansur), quoting Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1232 (Saller).) However, where the “plaintiff’s theory of defect seeks to examine the behavior of ‘obscure components under complex circums

2009(Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 461, 472 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 739 ]; McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1120 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 ].) Design defect may be proved under the consumer expectation test (that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect) and/or the risk-benefit test.

2009(Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 461, 472 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 739 ]; McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1120 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 ].) Design defect may be proved under the consumer expectation test (that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect) and/or the risk-benefit test.

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2017"We review de novo claims of instructional error. [Citation.]" ( Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990 , 1000, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 ( Romine ).) "[T]he consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product's users permits a conclusion that the product's design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is thus defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design ." ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 567 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) " 'The critical question, in assessing the applicability of the consumer exp

2017(Quoting Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at pp. 562, 567, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that the consumer expectation test applies on the basis that, in the context of the facts and circumstances in this case , the Subject Lift is the kind of product " 'about which ... ordinary consumers can form minimum safety expectations.' " (Quoting Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298 , 1311-1312, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 .) Which test(s) to apply depends on the particular facts of the case. ( Soule , at p. 566, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .)

2017(Quoting Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at pp. 562, 567, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that the consumer expectation test applies on the basis that, in the context of the facts and circumstances in this case , the Subject Lift is the kind of product " 'about which ... ordinary consumers can form minimum safety expectations.' " (Quoting Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298 , 1311-1312, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 .) Which test(s) to apply depends on the particular facts of the case. ( Soule , at p. 566, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .)

2015Second, a product may alternatively be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product’s design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to establish, in light of the relevant factors, that, on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.” The first test, commonly called the consumer expectation test, “is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is thus defective regardless of exper

2002(Barker, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 430 .) Whether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case. {Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 566 .) Because “ ‘ “[i]n many situations . . . the consumer . . . would have no idea how safe the product could be made,” ’ ” the consumer expectation test is “reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions and is thus de

2026(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 567 (Soule); Chavez, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1303 .) Under the consumer expectation test, “it will generally be enough for the injured plaintiff to show the circumstances of the accident and ‘the objective features of the product which are relevant to an evaluation of its safety’” by the jury.

2026(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 567 (Soule); Chavez, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1303 .) Under the consumer expectation test, “it will generally be enough for the injured plaintiff to show the circumstances of the accident and ‘the objective features of the product which are relevant to an evaluation of its safety’” by the jury.

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2026(Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1233 .) “Under the consumer expectation test, a product is defective in design if it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, or have a right to expect, when using the product in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. [Citations.] Because this test applies in cases in which jurors can evaluate a product’s safety design based on ‘the everyday experience of the product’s users’ [citation], the crucial question is 3 whether the circumstances of the product’s failure may properly permit ‘an inferenc

2017"We review de novo claims of instructional error. [Citation.]" ( Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990 , 1000, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 ( Romine ).) "[T]he consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product's users permits a conclusion that the product's design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is thus defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design ." ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 567 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) " 'The critical question, in assessing the applicability of the consumer exp

2017"We review de novo claims of instructional error. [Citation.]" ( Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990 , 1000, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 ( Romine ).) "[T]he consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product's users permits a conclusion that the product's design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is thus defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design ." ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 567 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) " 'The critical question, in assessing the applicability of the consumer exp

2026For example, it may be that an ‘[a]ir bag[ ] [that] inflat[es] for no apparent reason while one is cruising down the road at 65 miles per hour’ is the kind of product failure about which consumers may form minimum safety expectations without expert opinion[3] as to the relative merit of the design, while an air bag that deploys in a low-speed frontal collision may not be. [Citation.] The critical question, in assessing the applicability of the consumer expectation test, is not whether the product, when considered in isolation, is beyond the ordinary knowledge of the consumer, but whether the p

2017The complex nature of the design defects alleged here requires such scientific resources to achieve a just resolution of the controversy by the finder of fact." ( Morson , supra , 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 795 , 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 343 .) Because expert testimony was "essential to assist the finder of fact in understanding the pros and cons of" the design defect claim, Morson concluded that the alleged design defects of the latex gloves could not correctly be evaluated under the consumer expectation test. ( Id. at pp. 793, 795, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 343 .) The court in Pruitt v. General Motors Corp. (1999) 7

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2002(See Bresnahan v. Chrysler Corp. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1155 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 ] [on remand to trial court after court of appeal held sufficient evidence for applicability of consumer expectation test to be decided by jury, defendant argued to jury that consumer expectation test was inapplicable under complex fact situation of case; argument provided the jury with an “informed basis” to decide whether consumer expectation test applied].) We hold simply that, based on the evidence presented, and resolving all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, there is sufficient eviden

2017As explained below, we conclude that the consumer expectation test does not apply in these circumstances. 51 pre-empted where it is ‗impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements.‘ [Citations.]‖ (Bartlett, supra, 133 S.Ct. at p. 2473 ; see also PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing (2011) 564 U.S. 604, 618 (Mensing) [―[S]tate and federal law conflict where it is ‗impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements.‘‖].) Preemption of state product liability suits regarding OTC drugs is addressed by 21 United States Code section (U.S.C. § ) 379

2017Generic drug manufacturers are not free to strengthen drug label warnings under 21 C.F.R. § 314.70 , the FDA's "changes being effected" (CBE) regulation, which permits a brand name prescription drug manufacturer to strengthen a warning label while waiting for FDA approval of the change. ( Wyeth v. Levine (2009) 555 U.S. 555 , 558-559, 129 S.Ct. 1187 , 173 L.Ed.2d 51 ; Mensing , supra , 564 U.S. at pp. 613-615, 131 S.Ct. 2567 .) The CBE regulations do not apply to generic prescription drug labels, which are required by federal law to be identical to brand name labels. ( Mensing , supra , 564 U.

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

2017However, the "inherent complexity of the product itself is not controlling" in determining whether the consumer expectation test applies. ( *115 McCabe v. Amer ican Honda Motor Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 , 1122, fn. 5, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 ( McCabe ).) For example, in certain circumstances, where a technically complex product performs "so unsafely that the defect is apparent to the common reason, experience, and understanding of its *559 ordinary consumers," a lay jury is competent to determine whether the product's design is unsafe. ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 569 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 6

2017However, the "inherent complexity of the product itself is not controlling" in determining whether the consumer expectation test applies. ( *115 McCabe v. Amer ican Honda Motor Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 , 1122, fn. 5, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 ( McCabe ).) For example, in certain circumstances, where a technically complex product performs "so unsafely that the defect is apparent to the common reason, experience, and understanding of its *559 ordinary consumers," a lay jury is competent to determine whether the product's design is unsafe. ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 569 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 6

2017The Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment Based on a Lack of Causation 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 harm to the plaintiff. ( Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112 , 119, 184 Cal.Rptr. 891 , 649 P.2d 224 [risk-benefit test], 126 [consumer expectation test] ( Campbell ); CACI Nos. 1203 [consumer expectation test], 1204 [risk-benefit test]; see generally Rutherford v. Owens-Illi

2017The Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment Based on a Lack of Causation 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 harm to the plaintiff. ( Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112 , 119, 184 Cal.Rptr. 891 , 649 P.2d 224 [risk-benefit test], 126 [consumer expectation test] ( Campbell ); CACI Nos. 1203 [consumer expectation test], 1204 [risk-benefit test]; see generally Rutherford v. Owens-Illi

2026In determining the applicability of the consumer expectations test, we begin by noting that “[w]hether a plaintiff may proceed under the consumer expectation test or whether design defect must be assessed solely under the risk-benefit test is dependent upon the particular facts in each case.” ( McCabe, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 .) This is because, as discussed ante, “[t]he consumer expectations test is reserved [only] for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective re

2026For example, it may be that an ‘[a]ir bag[ ] [that] inflat[es] for no apparent reason while one is cruising down the road at 65 miles per hour’ is the kind of product failure about which consumers may form minimum safety expectations without expert opinion[3] as to the relative merit of the design, while an air bag that deploys in a low-speed frontal collision may not be. [Citation.] The critical question, in assessing the applicability of the consumer expectation test, is not whether the product, when considered in isolation, is beyond the ordinary knowledge of the consumer, but whether the p

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

2017In our independent review of the record in this appeal ( Aguilar , supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 860 , 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ), we have assumed that the overall design of the Subject Lift is technical and complex.

2026(Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 21, 30 (Kim); Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 32 (Johnson).) Under the consumer expectation test, a design is defective if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

2023(Kim, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 30 ; see also CACI §§ 1203 and 1204.) Nazari and Mosessian cite no authority showing that broadly arguing a product was defectively designed is sufficient to preserve arguments concerning both the consumer expectation test and the risk-benefit test for appeal.

2026However, it does not follow that the consumer expectations test applies here. “[T]he consumer expectations test does not apply merely because the consumer states that he or she did not expect to be injured by the product.” (Trejo, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 159 .) In most, if not all, cases in which a consumer is injured by a product, the injury is unexpected; as a consequence, if an unexpected injury or occurrence alone were enough, “the consumer expectation test always would apply and every product would be found to have a design defect.” (Id. at p. 159.) Far from suggesting this, the Supre

2026However, it does not follow that the consumer expectations test applies here. “[T]he consumer expectations test does not apply merely because the consumer states that he or she did not expect to be injured by the product.” (Trejo, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 159 .) In most, if not all, cases in which a consumer is injured by a product, the injury is unexpected; as a consequence, if an unexpected injury or occurrence alone were enough, “the consumer expectation test always would apply and every product would be found to have a design defect.” (Id. at p. 159.) Far from suggesting this, the Supre

2017Conn. 2014) 992 F.Supp.2d 68, 88 (Fraser) stating that ―evidence of Wyeth‘s marketing, advertising, and ghost-writing efforts was relevant to Plaintiffs‘ strict liability claim under the modified consumer expectation test.‖ However, Fraser applied a modified consumer expectation test, which ―‗incorporat[ed] risk-utility factors into the ordinary consumer expectation analysis.‘‖ (Id. at p. 83.) Because the jury here found in favor of defendants under the risk- benefit test, Fraser does not support plaintiff‘s contention.

2017Conn. 2014) 992 F.Supp.2d 68 , 88 ( Fraser ) stating that "evidence of Wyeth's marketing, advertising, and ghost-writing efforts was relevant to Plaintiffs' strict liability claim under the modified consumer expectation test." However, Fraser applied a modified consumer expectation test, which " 'incorporat[ed] risk-utility factors into the ordinary consumer expectation analysis.' " ( Id. at p. 83.) Because the jury here found in favor of defendants under the risk-benefit test, Fraser does not support plaintiff's contention.

2017(Quoting Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at pp. 562, 567, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that the consumer expectation test applies on the basis that, in the context of the facts and circumstances in this case , the Subject Lift is the kind of product " 'about which ... ordinary consumers can form minimum safety expectations.' " (Quoting Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298 , 1311-1312, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 .) Which test(s) to apply depends on the particular facts of the case. ( Soule , at p. 566, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .)

2017(Quoting Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at pp. 562, 567, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that the consumer expectation test applies on the basis that, in the context of the facts and circumstances in this case , the Subject Lift is the kind of product " 'about which ... ordinary consumers can form minimum safety expectations.' " (Quoting Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298 , 1311-1312, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 .) Which test(s) to apply depends on the particular facts of the case. ( Soule , at p. 566, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .)