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
- Whether evidence of industry custom and practice is admissible in a strict products liability design-defect case tried under the risk–benefit test.
- If admissible, whether such evidence may be used to show the manufacturer acted reasonably and therefore should not be held liable.
- 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.