Facts
- Ray P. Barker was injured in August 1970 at a University of California, Santa Cruz construction site while operating a high-lift loader.
- The loader was manufactured by Lull Engineering Company, Inc. and leased to Barker’s employer by George M. Philpott Co., Inc.
- Barker alleged the loader’s design was defective and proximately caused his injuries, including by lacking adequate safety features and by unsafe performance on uneven terrain.
- Defendants argued Barker was relatively inexperienced and used the loader on terrain and in a manner for which it was not intended.
Issues
- In a strict products liability design-defect case, may a jury be instructed that the plaintiff must prove the product was “unreasonably dangerous for its intended use”?
- What standards govern proof of a “design defect” in California strict products liability, including the role of reasonably foreseeable use and allocation of proof under a risk–benefit approach?
Decision
-
The California Supreme Court reversed the defense judgment and remanded for a new trial.
-
The trial court erred by instructing that strict liability for design defect requires a finding that the product was “unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.”
-
A product is defective in design if either:
- It failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner; or
- The benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design.
-
Under the risk–benefit test, once the plaintiff shows the design was a substantial factor in causing injury, the manufacturer bears the burden to prove the design’s benefits outweigh its risks.
Legal Principles
- California strict products liability does not require a plaintiff to prove a product was “unreasonably dangerous”; that element improperly reintroduces negligence concepts and adds an unnecessary additional hurdle.
- Design-defect liability is not limited to a product’s “intended use”; the inquiry includes intended or reasonably foreseeable uses (including reasonably foreseeable misuse).
- Consumer-expectation test: a design is defective if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect in intended or reasonably foreseeable use.
- Risk–benefit test: a design is defective if the design’s risks outweigh its benefits; relevant considerations include the gravity and likelihood of danger, feasibility of a safer alternative, cost of improvement, and adverse consequences of an alternative design.
- Burden allocation under risk–benefit: after causation is shown (design as a substantial factor), the manufacturer must justify the challenged design by proving benefits outweigh risks.
Conclusion
The court ordered a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed to require “unreasonably dangerous” danger and to focus on “intended use,” and it clarified that California design-defect strict liability is established either by failure to meet ordinary consumer safety expectations in intended or reasonably foreseeable use or by a risk–benefit showing in which the manufacturer must prove the design’s benefits outweigh its dangers once causation is shown.