## Facts

- William Jae Kim was severely injured when he lost control of a 2005 Toyota Tundra pickup truck and went off an embankment.
- The Tundra did not include vehicle stability control (VSC) as standard equipment; VSC was offered only as an option.
- Kim and his wife sued Toyota under strict products liability, alleging a design defect because VSC was not standard and would have prevented the accident.
- Before trial, plaintiffs sought to exclude evidence that other manufacturers also did not include VSC as standard equipment on pickup trucks; the trial court denied the motion.
- At trial, Toyota introduced evidence that no manufacturer made VSC standard on pickup trucks at the time and that Toyota’s design choice conformed to industry custom and practice.
- The jury received risk–benefit design-defect instructions but no limiting instruction on the proper use of industry custom evidence.
- The jury found no design defect; the trial court denied a new trial, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of industry custom and practice is admissible in a strict products liability design-defect case tried under the risk–benefit test.
2. If admissible, whether such evidence may be used to show the manufacturer acted reasonably and therefore should not be held liable.
3. Whether admission of industry custom evidence without a limiting instruction required reversal on the facts of this case.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Toyota.
- Industry custom and practice evidence is inadmissible when offered to show the manufacturer’s conduct was reasonable and therefore nonliability should follow.
- The same evidence may be admissible when relevant to the product-focused risk–benefit inquiry (including feasibility, cost, and design trade-offs of alternative designs).
- On this record, the evidence was properly admitted for the limited, risk–benefit purpose, and plaintiffs did not show prejudicial error from the absence of a limiting instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability for design defect focuses on the condition of the product, not the reasonableness of the manufacturer’s conduct; due care does not bar liability.
- Conformity with industry custom does not establish that a product is not defective and cannot be used as a negligence-style defense in strict liability.
- Industry custom and practice evidence is not categorically barred; it may be relevant to risk–benefit factors, including technological feasibility, practicality, and cost of safer alternative designs.
- Trial courts should control the purpose for which industry custom evidence is admitted and, when appropriate, give limiting instructions to reduce the risk that jurors treat custom as a complete defense.

## Conclusion

The court held that industry custom evidence cannot be used to prove a manufacturer acted reasonably in a strict design-defect case, but it may be admitted to inform the jury’s risk–benefit evaluation of the product’s design, including feasibility and cost of alternative designs; the verdict for Toyota was affirmed.


Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 6 Cal. 5th 21 (Cal. 2018)