Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialburden of proofleaseproduct liabilitystrict liability
plaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialleaseobjectionstrict liability

Related Cases

Franken v. City of Sioux Center, 272 N.W.2d 422
View Case »
Phipps v. Copeland Corporation LLC, 64 Cal.App.5th 319, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 688, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 21,170, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4818, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4877, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5677
View Case »
Lovell v. Brock, 330 Ark. 206, 952 S.W.2d 161
View Case »
Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal.4th 881, 69 P.3d 473, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 634, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1954, 31 Media L. Rep. 1774, 118 A.L.R.5th 727, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4586, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5834
View Case »
Sox v. Hertz Corp., 262 F.Supp. 531, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 215
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413, 573 P.2d 443, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 96 A.L.R.3d 1

Facts

Ray Barker was injured while operating a high-lift loader manufactured by Lull Engineering Co. and leased by George M. Philpott Co., Inc. The loader tipped while Barker attempted to lift a load of lumber, resulting in serious injuries when he was struck by falling lumber. Barker claimed that the loader's design was defective, citing its instability, lack of safety features like seat belts and a roll bar, and issues with the leveling mechanism. The defendants contended that the loader was not defective and that Barker's inexperience contributed to the accident.

In August 1970, plaintiff Ray Barker was injured at a construction site at the University of California at Santa Cruz while operating a high-lift loader manufactured by defendant Lull Engineering Co. and leased to plaintiff's employer by defendant George M. Philpott Co., Inc.

Issue

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury that strict liability for a defect in design of a product is based on a finding that the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use?

Plaintiff contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury 'that strict liability for a defect in design of a product is based on a finding that the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.'

Rule

Under California law, a product may be found to have a design defect if it fails to perform safely as an ordinary consumer would expect or if the design's risks outweigh its benefits, without requiring proof that the product is unreasonably dangerous.

A product may be found to have a 'design defect,' so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injuries, under either of two alternative tests: first, the product may be found defective in design if plaintiff establishes that it failed to perform safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, and second, a product may be found defective in design if plaintiff demonstrates that its design proximately caused his injury and defendant fails to establish, in light of relevant factors, that, on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent therein.

Analysis

The court determined that the trial court's instruction to the jury was erroneous because it imposed an additional burden on the plaintiff to prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous. The court clarified that the standard for design defects should focus on whether the product met ordinary consumer expectations for safety and whether the risks of the design outweighed its benefits. This approach aligns with the principles established in the Cronin case, which rejected the 'unreasonably dangerous' terminology in product liability actions.

Consequently, we conclude that the instruction was erroneous and that the judgment in favor of defendants must be reversed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the jury was misled by the incorrect instruction regarding the burden of proof for design defects.

Judgment reversed.

Who won?

Ray Barker prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the burden of proof regarding design defects.

We agree with plaintiff's objection to the challenged instruction and conclude that the judgment must be reversed.

You must be