Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was driving his 2005 Toyota (D) Tundra pickup truck through the mountains on the Angeles Forest Highway. A vehicle coming from the opposite direction crossed into his lane. P attempted a sequence of three steering maneuvers-a right steer, a left steer, and a right steer-that resulted in Kim losing control of the vehicle. The truck ran off the road and down the side of a cliff before it came to rest. Kim suffered serious neck and spinal cord injuries that rendered him a quadriplegic. P sued D for his injuries, asserting causes of action for strict products liability and loss of consortium. P alleged that electronic stability control (VSC) would have prevented the accident. In 2005, D offered VSC-then a relatively new technology-on the Tundra as part of an optional package including various enhanced safety features. Ps alleged that VSC should instead have been made part of the Tundra's standard equipment and that the omission was a defect in the Tundra's design. P filed a motion in limine asking the court to preclude “any argument, evidence or testimony comparing the Tundra to competitor's vehicles and designs, and any evidence or argument that D’s design choices were not defective … because they were equivalent or superior to those of its competitors.” According to counsel, Ps were not seeking exclusion of this evidence, but rather a limiting instruction advising that this evidence was being offered only “to explain why D did or didn't do what they did under the risk-benefit doctrine,” and not to make out a defense to liability. The trial court denied the motion. At trial, P argued that VSC would have prevented the accident and that the benefits of including VSC on the 2005 Toyota Tundra outweighed the risks of its omission. They presented expert testimony that VSC helps drivers maintain control of their vehicle by sensing when the vehicle turns more or less than the driver's steering wheel input-either causing the vehicle's rear end to swing out and the rear tires to slip or, alternatively, causing the vehicle to drift and the front tires to slip-and applying a brake to either a front or back tire to counteract the rotation and help the driver straighten out the vehicle. Two expert witnesses opined that VSC would have prevented P from losing control of his truck. A third expert witness estimated that the incremental cost to D of adding VSC to the 2005 Tundra would have been approximately $300 to $350 per vehicle. D's product planning manager explained that D was trying to “produce a vehicle that met the customer's needs based on price, based on future availability, and at the time we felt like optional VSC was the best decision.” D's market research indicated that pickup truck consumers were price-sensitive and uninterested in VSC and that none of Toyota's competitors were offering VSC as either standard or optional equipment on their 2005 pickup truck models. Ps used this testimony to argue that D knew that pickup trucks have similar loss-of-control risks to SUVs, and therefore required comparable safety equipment, but D knowingly disregarded the safety risk because it saw no competitive advantage in including VSC as standard equipment on pickup trucks. D argues that the Tundra was already safe without VSC and that VSC would not have averted P's accident. Toyota presented expert testimony that: (1) P caused the accident by driving above the speed limit in poor driving conditions; (2) VSC could not have averted the accident because VSC helps to steer the vehicle in the direction the steering wheel is aimed, and P's left steer would have aimed the car in the direction of the embankment; and (3) the 2005 Tundra was already equipped with features designed to prevent vehicle control problems. The jury was instructed on the risk-benefit theory of strict products liability, under which the jury must determine whether the product's design creates a preventable danger that is excessive in relation to the advantages of the design. The jury found that the Tundra did not have a design defect, and the trial court entered a judgment in favor of D. n appeal, Ps challenged the trial court's denial of their motion in limine to exclude evidence of industry custom and practice. The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co