Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
20 Cal. 3d 413, 573 P.2d 443, 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product is defective in design 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 challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.
Facts:
- Ray Barker, an employee with limited experience operating a high-lift loader, was assigned to operate one manufactured by Lull Engineering Co.
- The loader, which lacked a roll bar, seat belts, and stabilizing outriggers, was being used on sharply sloped terrain at a construction site.
- While Barker was attempting to lift a load of lumber to the second story of a building, the loader began to vibrate and the load started to tip.
- Coworkers shouted for Barker to jump from the machine.
- Barker leaped from the loader and was struck and seriously injured by a piece of falling lumber while scrambling away.
- Barker's experts contended the loader's design was defective due to its instability, the absence of safety features like outriggers and a roll bar, and the vulnerable placement of its leveling lever.
- Lull's experts contended the loader was safe for its intended purpose and that the accident was caused by Barker's misuse of the equipment on unsuitable terrain.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray Barker sued Lull Engineering Co. (manufacturer) and George M. Philpott Co., Inc. (lessor) in a California trial court for damages from his injuries.
- The trial court instructed the jury that for the defendants to be found strictly liable, Barker had to prove the loader's design was 'unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.'
- The jury returned a 10-2 verdict in favor of the defendants.
- A judgment was entered for the defendants, and Barker appealed that judgment directly to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction requiring a plaintiff to prove that a product's design is 'unreasonably dangerous for its intended use' accurately state the law for design defects in California?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, Acting C. J.
No. A jury instruction requiring a plaintiff to prove that a product's design is 'unreasonably dangerous' is erroneous because it incorrectly implies a plaintiff has a dual burden of proving both a defect and unreasonable danger, and it improperly incorporates a consumer-expectation-only standard that can shield manufacturers from liability. The proper test for a design defect involves two alternative prongs. First, under the 'consumer expectation test,' a product is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Second, under the 'risk-benefit test,' a product is defective if its design proximately caused the injury and the defendant fails to prove that the benefits of the design outweigh the inherent risks. For the second prong, the burden of proof shifts to the manufacturer to justify the design once the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of causation. This dual test focuses on the condition of the product itself, not the reasonableness of the manufacturer's conduct.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shaped modern products liability law by establishing the influential two-pronged 'Barker test' for design defects. By rejecting the Restatement's 'unreasonably dangerous' standard and creating the dual consumer expectation and risk-benefit tests, the court provided plaintiffs with two distinct paths to prove a design defect. Crucially, the court's decision to shift the burden of proof to the manufacturer under the risk-benefit prong significantly eased the plaintiff's evidentiary burden, forcing manufacturers to justify the safety of their designs in court. This framework has been widely adopted and remains a cornerstone of design defect litigation.
