|
CONSUMER EXPECTATION TEST CANNOT BE USED TO ESTABLISH A DESIGN DEFECT WHEN COMPEX EVALUATION IS REQUIRED
Mansur, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
(California Appellate Court, August 3, 2011)
In Mansur v. Ford Motor Company, et al., the California Court of Appeals (Fourth Dist.) ruled that the consumer expectation test, used to determine whether a product is defectively designed in a strict liability action, is inapplicable when a plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence concerning the objective features of the subject product and instead relies on a complex evaluation.
Factual Background
Mohammad Mansur (“Mohammad”) was driving a 1996 Ford Explorer at approximately 50 to 60 miles per hour when he lost control of the car. The Explorer rolled over three and a half times, coming to rest on its roof in the center median. Omeedeh Mansur (“Omeedeh”), Mohammad’s wife, was riding in the Explorer’s passenger seat and wearing a seat belt. The Mansurs’ two young children were seated in child restraint systems in the Explorer’s rear seats.
As the Explorer rolled, the roof above the passenger seat buckled and crushed into the passenger seat, causing serious injuries to Omeedeh’s head and upper torso. Omeedeh died from blunt force injury shortly after arriving at the emergency room. Mohammad and the children suffered non-fatal injuries.
Mohammad filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and a Ford dealer, alleging claims for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. At trial, Mohammad’s attorneys offered expert testimony from an engineering consultant and a biomechanical engineer concerning the Explorer’s stability, handling, roof strength, and restraint system. Ford filed a motion to preclude Mohammad’s use of the consumer expectation test to establish a design defect on the grounds that the vehicle’s stability, handling, roof strength, and restraint system were beyond the common experience of an ordinary consumer, meaning that an ordinary consumer could not have a legitimate expectation as to how these systems should perform in a rollover accident. The trial court granted Ford’s motion to preclude the consumer expectation test, explaining that the test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of a user would permit a finding that the product’s design was defective. The expert testimony offered at trial, the court held, was beyond the knowledge of an ordinary consumer.
The Appellate Court’s Holding
On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling to preclude the consumer expectation test. The Court based its ruling on the following theories and analysis:
i. Design Defect
A product liability claim can be established under one of three theories: design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn. At trial, Mohammad attempted to establish his product liability claim under the design defect theory. A design defect claim can be established under one of two different tests: (1) the consumer expectation test, which asks whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect (when the product is used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable way); or (2) the risk-benefit test, which asks whether the benefits of the design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design. (Id., at 10-11.) At trial, both tests may be presented to the jury in an attempt to establish a design defect.
ii. The Consumer Expectation Test
The consumer expectation test is limited to those 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.’” (Id. at 11.) Thus, in determining whether the consumer expectation test applies, the controlling issue is the common knowledge, experience, and understanding of an ordinary consumer; not the complexity of the product itself. (Id.) Indeed, a complex product may still perform so unsafely that the defect is apparent to the understanding of an ordinary consumer. (Id.)
iii. Required Evidentiary Showing
A consumer expectation jury instruction will only be given at trial if there is sufficient evidence to support the theory. (Id. at 11-12.) Generally, it is sufficient “if the plaintiff provides evidence concerning (1) his or her use of the product; (2) the circumstances surrounding the injury, and (3) the objective features of the product which are relevant to an evaluation of its safety.” (Id. at 12 [citing Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1232].) Using these three evidentiary requirements, the Court concluded that Mansur satisfied requirements one and two.
As to the third evidentiary requirement, objective features relevant to an evaluation of the product’s safety, the Court concluded that Mohammad presented insufficient evidence. At trial, evidence was introduced which established that a 1993 Ford focus group considered the Explorer a “station wagon of the 90s” which provided a greater sense of safety and security; that the Mansurs viewed the Explorer as a family vehicle; that the Explorer worked “great” for the Mansurs; that the vehicle had Goodyear tires on it; and that there was a warning on the driver’s sun visor about the handling of SUV’s. (Id. at 15-16.)
The Court concluded, however, that the evidence presented did not show the Explorer’s objective features in a way that the jury could understand why the roof crushed in on Omeedeh. (Id. at 16-17.) Further, proof that the Explorer is a family vehicle is not sufficient to evaluate a vehicle’s safety features. (Id. at 17.) The Court ruled that the expert testimony offered by Mohammad concerning the Explorer’s stability, handling, roof strength, and restraint system was beyond the knowledge of an ordinary consumer and therefore could not be relied upon in a consumer expectation theory of liability. (Id. at 20.) Thus, based upon the insufficient evidence presented about the objective features of the product, the Court concluded that the trial court correctly denied the consumer expectation jury instruction at trial.
If you need a copy of the opinion or would like to discuss these issues please contact us.
Frank T. Sabaitis
Brad A. Byszewski
|
