Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc.
191 Cal. App. 4th 1298, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 45 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is strictly liable for a design defect under the risk-benefit test if a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the product's design was a proximate cause of their injury. The burden then shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risks of danger inherent in such design, considering factors like the feasibility and cost of safer alternatives.
Facts:
- On December 14, 2003, Sukhsagar Pannu was driving his 1998 Land Rover Discovery on a freeway.
- A vehicle driven by Bret Lusis struck Pannu's Discovery, forcing it into another lane.
- Pannu's vehicle then collided with a Chevrolet Blazer driven by David Beres.
- Following the second collision, the Land Rover Discovery rolled over multiple times.
- During the rollover, the vehicle's roof crushed inward, with deformation ranging from 16 to 17 inches into the occupant space.
- The roof crush caused Pannu to suffer a bilateral facet dislocation of his C-6 and C-7 vertebrae, resulting in quadriplegia.
- Expert evidence indicated that the Discovery had a propensity to roll over due to steering inputs alone and that its roof could have been significantly strengthened for approximately $76 in materials.
- Land Rover's marketing materials, which Pannu read, highlighted the vehicle's "steel inner body cage" and "steel roof panel" as safety features.
Procedural Posture:
- Sukhsagar Pannu sued Land Rover North America, Inc., and related entities in a California trial court for strict products liability.
- The case was tried before a judge without a jury (a bench trial).
- The trial court found in favor of Pannu and entered a judgment against Land Rover for $21,654,000.
- Land Rover filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Land Rover (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second District, with Pannu as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a vehicle manufacturer strictly liable for design defects in stability and roof strength under the risk-benefit test when the plaintiff proves the design was a substantial factor in causing injury and a safer, feasible alternative design existed?
Opinions:
Majority - Perluss, P. J.
Yes. A manufacturer is strictly liable for design defects under the risk-benefit test when the plaintiff demonstrates the design caused the injury and a safer, feasible alternative existed. The court found that while the applicability of the consumer expectation test was a close question, it was unnecessary to resolve because Land Rover's liability was clearly established under the alternative risk-benefit test. Under this test, Pannu successfully made a prima facie showing that the Discovery's instability and weak roof design were substantial factors in causing his rollover and subsequent injuries. The burden then shifted to Land Rover, which failed to prove that the benefits of its design outweighed the inherent risks. Pannu's experts demonstrated that feasible, modest, and low-cost modifications—such as widening the track width and reinforcing the roof—could have dramatically improved the vehicle's safety and prevented the injury. The court deferred to the trial court's factual findings, which credited Pannu's experts over Land Rover's regarding both the cause of the rollover and the medical cause of the spinal injury. The court also upheld the finding of liability for failure to warn, noting that Land Rover knew of the vehicle's rollover risks yet marketed its steel components as safety features.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the power of the risk-benefit test as an independent basis for establishing a design defect, particularly in complex cases involving vehicle crashworthiness where the 'consumer expectation' test may be difficult for a plaintiff to meet. It affirms the critical burden-shifting framework established in Barker v. Lull, placing the onus on the manufacturer to justify its design choices once the plaintiff shows causation and a feasible safer alternative. The ruling also demonstrates the significant deference appellate courts give to trial court findings on competing expert testimony regarding accident reconstruction and causation, underscoring the pivotal role of credible experts at trial.
Unlock the full brief for Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc.