8 Cal. 4th 548, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607, 882 P.2d 298 (1994)
On January 16, 1984, plaintiff Terri Soule was driving her 1982 Camaro southbound on Bolsa Chica Road in Westminster.1 A northbound 1972 Datsun skidded into her path and struck the left front wheel area.2 The combined closing speeds ranged from 30 to 70 miles per hour.3
The impact bent the Camaro's frame, tore loose the lower control arm bracket, and caused the wheel to collapse rearward and inward.4 This deformed the toe pan upward into the passenger compartment.5 Soule, who was not wearing a seat belt, suffered fractures to both ankles.6 The left ankle required surgical fusion that left her with permanent loss of flexion and difficulty walking.7
After the accident the damaged toe pan was discarded by a salvage dealer.8 The failed bracket assembly was recovered and photographed.9 Soule sued General Motors for strict products liability.10 She claimed both a manufacturing defect in the weld attaching the lower control arm bracket and design defects in the bracket placement and frame configuration that permitted excessive rearward wheel travel.11 She supported these claims with testimony from metallurgists, biomechanics experts, and design engineers, crash-test results, and comparisons to the Ford Mustang's alternative frame and bracket design.12
GM presented its own metallurgist disputing any weld defect.13 Design engineers testified that the Camaro bracket was overdesigned and that the Mustang configuration was not safer under all collision stresses.14 Accident-reconstruction experts concluded that the collision force exceeded the yield strength of any feasible design and that Soule's unrestrained inertial movement, not toe-pan deformation, caused the ankle fractures. The case was tried to a jury that received the standard design-defect instruction encompassing both consumer-expectations and risk-benefit theories.15 The court refused GM's requested special instruction stating that any defect was not a substantial factor if the same injuries would have occurred even with a nondefective design.16
The jury returned special findings that the Camaro contained a defect that was a legal cause of Soule's enhanced injuries and awarded her $1.65 million.17 The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.18 The Supreme Court granted review.19
Whether a product's design may be found defective on the ground that its performance fell below the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer if the question of how safely the product should have performed cannot be answered by the common experience of its users?20
Under Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., a product is defectively designed if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or if the benefits of the design are outweighed by the risks.21 The consumer expectations test applies only when the jury can rely on its own common knowledge and experience without expert testimony.22 Complex technical designs require the risk-benefit test.23
No. The Camaro's wheel bracket assembly, frame configuration, and toe pan deformation involved intricate engineering tradeoffs regarding crashworthiness, weld strength, and alternative designs such as the Ford Mustang's bracket placement.24 Both parties presented extensive expert testimony from metallurgists, biomechanics specialists, and design engineers analyzing collision forces between 30 and 70 miles per hour, porosity in the weld, and whether the bracket was overdesigned.25 Ordinary consumers lack the experience to assess these technical performance questions.26 Therefore the trial court erred by instructing solely on consumer expectations without the risk-benefit prong.27
The consumer expectations instruction was erroneous in this complex case, but the error was harmless because the evidence and arguments focused on technical risk-benefit considerations and the jury likely applied that analysis.28
Related opinions on this issue
Mosk concurs in the judgment and in much of the majority opinion.29 He writes separately to emphasize that the consumer expectations test remains a viable and important standard in many products liability cases.30 In cases involving simple products or where the defect is obvious to the ordinary consumer, the test should be given without modification.31
The majority's limitation on the test is appropriate here but should not be extended beyond the facts of this case.32
Whether, in an action for enhanced collision injuries caused by an uncrashworthy vehicle where a correct general instruction on legal cause is given, it is error to refuse a defense instruction that any defect cannot be a legal cause of injury if the accident would have produced the same injury even without the defect?33
A party is entitled to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence.34 The general substantial-factor instruction on legal cause is insufficient by negative implication when the defendant presents evidence that the same injuries would have occurred regardless of any defect.35
Yes. GM produced substantial evidence through accident reconstruction, computer simulations, and crash tests showing that the collision force exceeded the yield strength of any feasible design.36 Soule's unrestrained inertial movement against the toe pan, rather than any deformation caused by a defect, caused the ankle fractures.37 The general causation instruction did not specifically address this theory that the defect was not a substantial factor because the injuries would have occurred anyway.38
Therefore the trial court erred by refusing GM's requested pinpoint instruction.39
Refusal of the requested causation instruction was error, but the error was harmless on this record because GM's theory was fully presented through evidence and argument, the general instruction encompassed the defense, and nothing indicated the jury was misled.40
Related opinions on this issue
Kennard dissents from the judgment.41 She contends that the majority's decision unduly restricts the consumer expectations test.42 The decision imposes unnecessary limitations on the ability of plaintiffs to recover in design defect cases.43
The test is not as narrow as the majority suggests.44 The jury in this case was properly instructed.45 The evidence supported the verdict.46
The judgment should be affirmed.47 The majority's holding will make it more difficult for injured consumers to hold manufacturers accountable for defective designs.48
Arabian concurs that the trial court committed instructional error by refusing GM's requested causation instruction.49 He dissents from the conclusion that the error was harmless.50 The general legal-cause instruction provided only abstract guidance.51
It failed to relate GM's specific theory to the facts of the case.52 The abstract definition of legal cause provided the jury no meaningful guidance in terms related to the particular case before it.53 Hence, Arabian concludes that this factor weighs strongly in favor of a finding of prejudice.54
Whether the refusal of such a causation instruction is reversible per se?55
Under article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, a judgment may not be reversed for instructional error unless, after examination of the entire cause including the evidence, the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice.56 There is no rule of automatic or per se reversal for the erroneous refusal of civil theory instructions.57
No. The constitutional requirement of actual prejudice applies to all forms of instructional error in civil cases, including omissions of pinpoint instructions on a party's theory.58 The error must be evaluated under the multifactor test considering the state of the evidence, effect of other instructions, counsel's arguments, and any indications from the jury whether it was misled, rather than presumed prejudicial as a matter of law.59
The refusal of the causation instruction is not reversible per se, and on this record the error was harmless because GM's theory received full evidentiary and argumentative support and the jury gave no sign of confusion.60