## Facts

- Sukhsagar Pannu drove a 1998 Land Rover Discovery on a freeway at about 65 mph in light mist; the roadway was dry.
- A faster-moving Acura struck the Discovery from behind on the driver’s side, pushing it across lanes into a collision with another vehicle.
- The Discovery rolled multiple times and came to rest upside down with its roof crushed.
- Pannu suffered catastrophic cervical-spine injuries resulting in quadriplegia.
- Pannu sued the distributor/manufacturer entities and the dealership under strict products liability for design defects: (1) unstable handling/rollover propensity and (2) inadequate roof strength causing excessive roof intrusion.
- Pannu’s experts testified that a foreseeable rapid steering correction after the initial impact could trigger rollover due to the vehicle’s stability characteristics, and that relatively modest reinforcements would have materially limited roof crush.
- Land Rover disputed defect and causation, emphasizing, among other points, the asserted significance of no skid marks and attacking plaintiff expert methodology.

## Issues

1. Whether the consumer expectation test may be applied to alleged design defects involving rollover dynamics and roof crush where expert testimony and technical evidence are substantial.
2. Whether, under the risk–benefit test, Land Rover carried its burden to show the design’s benefits outweighed its risks after plaintiff made a prima facie showing of causation.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding certain defense evidence related to accident reconstruction and stability/skid-mark contentions.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported findings of design defect and causation as to both rollover propensity and roof-crush injury mechanisms.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Pannu in full.
- The trial court properly applied the consumer expectation test to the vehicle’s performance in the accident and to roof performance in preserving occupant space.
- The trial court properly applied the risk–benefit test, and Land Rover failed to prove the challenged designs’ benefits outweighed their risks given evidence of feasible, low-cost design improvements.
- The evidentiary rulings fell within the trial court’s discretion and did not warrant reversal.
- Substantial evidence supported the findings that stability characteristics contributed to the rollover and that roof weakness and intrusion were a substantial factor in causing Pannu’s spinal injuries.

## Legal Principles

- A design defect may be proven under the consumer expectation test by showing the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, even if expert testimony is presented.
- Under the risk–benefit test, once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the design was a substantial factor in causing injury, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the design’s benefits outweigh its risks.
- Evidence of feasible safer alternative designs, including cost and practicality, may be highly probative in risk–benefit analysis.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion; review of factual findings is for substantial evidence, and the appellate court does not reweigh competing expert opinions or draw contrary inferences where substantial evidence supports the trier of fact.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a substantial strict-liability design-defect judgment arising from an SUV rollover and roof-crush injury, holding that consumer expectations could be assessed in the real-world accident context, that the manufacturer failed to carry its risk–benefit burden in light of feasible safer designs, and that the trial court’s evidentiary and factual determinations were supported on appeal.


Pannu v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1298, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605 (Ct. App. 2011)