## Facts

- Lana Glenell Transue received silicone gel-filled breast implants in 1985 that were manufactured by Medical Engineering Corporation (MEC), a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb.
- Transue alleged the implants ruptured and caused tissue death, scarring, pain, and permanent silicone contamination.
- She sued in federal court asserting Washington product-liability theories including manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, and breach of warranties.
- Defendants disputed rupture and causation, pointing to pre-implantation breast pain and later medical examinations and imaging that reportedly showed no rupture.
- At trial, the court refused to instruct the jury on strict product liability and instead instructed only on negligence concepts (ordinary care).
- The jury returned a verdict for defendants under the negligence instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington law required strict product-liability jury instructions for Transue’s manufacturing-defect, design-defect, and failure-to-warn theories, rather than negligence-only instructions.
2. Whether the omission of strict-liability instructions was prejudicial and required a new trial.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in certain evidentiary rulings (spoliation testimony, exclusion of rebuttal witnesses, and limits on learned-treatise cross-examination).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for defendants and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that limiting the jury to negligence-based instructions was a substantive misstatement of Washington product-liability law.
- The instructional error was not harmless because a jury applying strict-liability standards could have reached a different result.
- Because reversal was required on instructional grounds, the court did not decide the challenged evidentiary rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington product-liability law, manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure-to-warn claims may proceed under strict-liability standards that focus on the condition of the product rather than the manufacturer’s level of care.
- A plaintiff is entitled to jury instructions that accurately present legally supported theories; refusing proper strict-liability instructions can be reversible error.
- Negligence instructions that require proof of lack of ordinary care cannot substitute for strict-liability instructions when state law provides a distinct strict-liability framework.
- An instructional error warrants reversal when it likely affected the verdict and the general defense verdict does not resolve what the jury would have done under the correct legal standard.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ordered a new trial because the jury was instructed only on negligence, depriving the plaintiff of Washington strict product-liability standards applicable to defect and warning claims and creating prejudicial legal error.


Transue v. Aesthetech Corp., 341 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003)