Daily Blast March 17, 2014

he California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five (Los Angeles) issued an opinion in Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (Mar. 17, 2014, B239761) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, analyzing whether the trial court erred in permitting plaintiff to try her strict products liability design defect claim under the consumer expectations test rather than the risk/benefit test, whether the designer/engineer could be held strictly liable for product design defect and whether the court erred in excluding evidence of apportionment of fault as to the parts manufacturer. (Slip opn., pp. 2, 17-19.) The Court of Appeal held the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the consumer expectations test, that the engineer could not be found strictly liable for product design defect and that the trial court erred in not permitting evidence of other parts manufacturers’ liability for apportionment of fault. (Id. at pp. 14, 17, 24.)

This case arose from an automobile accident wherein a vehicle traveling between 70 and 86 miles per hour slammed into a line of vehicles stopped at an intersection propelling a vehicle into the back of plaintiff’s Nissan pickup truck. (Slip opn., pp. 2-3.) The collision caused plaintiff’s seat to fall back and rendered her a quadriplegic. (Ibid.) Plaintiff sued multiple parties for her injuries and tried her strict products liability claim against defendant company that designed/engineered the seat in her vehicle and defendant manufacturer of her vehicle’s seat. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and found defendants to be 20% at fault for her injuries leading to a judgment of $4,606,926.68, after offsets and settlements, against defendants. Defendants appealed from the judgment. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not err in applying the consumer expectations test. “The consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the products’ users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is ‘defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design.’” (Slip opn., p. 10 quoting Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560, italics in original.) The fact that expert testimony was required to establish legal causation for plaintiff’s injuries does not mean that an ordinary user of the product would be unable to form assumptions about the safety of the product. (Id. at p. 10.) The court determined that consumers have expectations about whether a vehicle’s driver seat will collapse rearward in a rear-end collision, regardless of the speed of the collision. Thus, the court concluded that rear-end collisions are common and within the average consumer’s ordinary experience. (Id. at pp. 12-13.) Further, in cases where the consumer expectations test is appropriate, the manufacturer may not defend a claim that a product’s design failed to perform as safely as its ordinary consumers would expect by presenting expert evidence of the design’s relative risks and benefits. (Id. at p. 14.) Accordingly, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the consumer expectations test and therefore, did not err in excluding evidence relative to the design’s risks and benefits. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal further determined that the designer of the seat may not be held strictly liable for a product it designed or engineered but did not manufacture, sell or otherwise place in the stream of commerce. Engineers who do not participate in bringing a product into the market and simply design a product are not subject to strict products liability. The court explained that engineers render a professional service and are in no sense analogous to manufacturers who place products on the market and who are in the best position to spread the costs of injuries resulting from defective products. (Slip opn., p. 18.) Therefore, because the designer company provided engineering services in connection with the seat, it could only be held liable for defects in the seat on theories of negligence or intentional misconduct and not on strict products liability. (Ibid.)

Further, the court discussed Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 555. The court held that “[although the trial court erred in this case by admitting evidence of the full amount billed for plaintiff’s medical care, defendants have failed to show that the error was prejudicial.” (Slip opn., p. 25.)

Finally, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that would have allowed the jury to apportion fault among Nissan and the component part manufacturers. Under the doctrine of strict products liability, all defendants in the chain of distribution are jointly and severally liable. The liability may be apportioned between a defendant whose liability was based on strict products liability and another defendant whose liability was based on negligence. Therefore, the trial court erred in not permitting defendants to provide evidence in support of its theory that liability should be apportioned among Nissan and the other parts manufacturers. (Slip opn., p. 24.) Accordingly, the appellate court remanded the case for retrial limited to the issue of apportionment of fault. (Id. at p. 27.)

Related Practices

• Appellate