## Facts

- Celestino Luque used a rotary power lawn mower purchased by his cousins from a retailer and manufactured by Air Capital Manufacturing Company.
- The mower had an unguarded front opening through which the rotating blade’s path was exposed; the word “caution” appeared near the opening.
- Evidence conflicted on whether the mower was provided with written safety instructions; there was testimony that Luque had been warned not to put his hand into the opening.
- While mowing wet grass at a friend’s house, Luque left the mower stationary with the motor running to remove a carton from its path.
- Luque slipped on wet grass, fell backward, and his hand entered the unguarded opening, where the blade severely injured his hand.
- Luque sued the mower-related defendants on a strict products liability theory, alleging the mower’s design was defective and caused his injuries.

## Issues

1. In a strict products liability action, must the plaintiff prove as part of the prima facie case that he was unaware of the alleged defect (i.e., that the defect was latent to him)?
2. Is the plaintiff’s awareness of an alleged defect properly addressed as part of an assumption-of-risk defense for the defendant to prove?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held the plaintiff is not required to prove lack of knowledge of the defect as part of the prima facie strict liability case.
- The trial court’s instructions placing on Luque the burden to prove he was not aware of the defect were prejudicially erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- In strict products liability, the plaintiff’s burden is to prove (1) the product contained a defect and (2) the defect was a proximate cause of the injury.
- The plaintiff need not prove the defect was latent or that the plaintiff lacked awareness of it.
- Assumption of risk (voluntary exposure to a known danger) may be asserted in strict liability, but it is a defense for the defendant to establish; it is not an element the plaintiff must negate.
- Jury instructions that shift the burden of proving plaintiff’s lack of knowledge to the plaintiff in strict liability constitute reversible error when they may have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court held that strict products liability requires proof of defect and causation only, and that a plaintiff’s knowledge of an alleged defect concerns assumption of risk, which the defendant must prove; because the jury was instructed otherwise, the defense verdict was reversed.


Luque v. McLean, 501 P.2d 1163 (Cal. 1972)