$1,100,000
Product Defect
Case name: Confidential v. Confidential
The plaintiff sustained a forearm laceration caused by a defect in a popular subscription product. Because of the product’s terms, the plaintiff was required to pursue arbitration. However, before arbitration proceedings began, the plaintiff resolved the claim with the defendant through a settlement
“A manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.”(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8Cal.4th 548, 560 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298].) “[T]he consumer expectation test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions, and is thus defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design.” (Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 567, original italics.)
The California CACI JURY Instruction for the Consumer Expectation Test is below for reference.
1203.Strict Liability – Design Defect – Consumer Expectation
Test – Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims the [product]’s design was defective because the [product] did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
- That [name of defendant] [manufactured/distributed/sold] the
[product]; - That the [product] did not perform as safely as an ordinary
consumer would have expected it to perform when used or
misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; - That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
- That the [product]’s failure to perform safely was a substantial
factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
