## Facts

- Andrew Garcia, a minor, was injured during a tonsillectomy performed by Dr. Douglas Phan.
- Dr. Phan used an electrosurgical device powered by an electrosurgical generator manufactured by ConMed Corporation.
- Garcia sued Dr. Phan for medical malpractice and sued ConMed under strict products-liability theories, including design defect and failure to warn.
- At trial, evidence focused heavily on Dr. Phan’s settings and technique in using the generator and how those choices related to the injury.
- The jury returned a special verdict for ConMed, finding no products-liability liability under the theories submitted.
- Garcia moved for a partial new trial as to ConMed, arguing the jury instructions and special verdict form improperly centered Dr. Phan’s conduct and permitted ConMed to be relieved of liability based on a superseding-cause framing.
- The trial court denied the new trial motion, and Garcia appealed from the judgment for ConMed and the denial of the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury instructions and special verdict form improperly allowed the surgeon’s conduct to operate as an independent or superseding cause that would relieve the manufacturer of strict products liability.
2. Whether it was proper to permit consideration and allocation of responsibility between the surgeon and the manufacturer under California causation and comparative fault principles in a mixed malpractice–products case.
3. Whether any asserted instructional, verdict-form, or related trial errors were prejudicial enough to require a new trial.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of ConMed and affirmed the order denying Garcia’s motion for a partial new trial.
- Considering the instructions and verdict form as a whole, the court found no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled on strict liability, causation, superseding cause, or comparative fault.
- The court held the surgeon’s conduct was properly considered in determining whether any product defect or inadequate warning was a substantial factor in causing the injury and, if appropriate, in apportioning responsibility.
- The court concluded Garcia did not show a reasonable probability of a more favorable result absent the alleged errors.

## Legal Principles

- In strict products-liability claims, a manufacturer may be liable if a product defect or inadequate warning is a substantial factor in causing injury, even when another actor’s negligence also contributes.
- Intervening negligence by a medical professional does not automatically constitute a superseding cause; the analysis turns on foreseeability and whether the alleged defect remained a substantial factor.
- California comparative fault permits allocation of responsibility among multiple causes of injury, including negligent medical care and an allegedly defective product; a manufacturer may receive zero allocation if the jury finds no defect or no causation.
- Alleged errors in jury instructions and special verdict forms are evaluated in context and do not warrant reversal absent a reasonable likelihood of jury confusion and a showing of prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict for the device manufacturer, ruling that the jury was properly instructed to assess whether any defect or inadequate warning was a substantial factor in causing the injury and that the surgeon’s conduct could be considered for causation and comparative fault without automatically insulating the manufacturer from strict liability.


Garcia v. ConMed Corp., 204 Cal. App. 4th 144, 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)