Soule v. General Motors Corp.
8 Cal. 4th 548, 882 P.2d 298, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product liability action for a design defect, the 'ordinary consumer expectations' test is reserved for cases where the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a conclusion that the design violated minimum safety assumptions. In cases involving complex product designs and technical matters beyond common knowledge, the jury must instead evaluate the design's defectiveness using the 'risk-benefit' test.
Facts:
- Terri Soule was driving her 1982 General Motors (GM) Camaro when a Datsun skidded into the path of her car.
- The Datsun's left rear quarter struck Soule's Camaro near its left front wheel.
- The collision bent the Camaro's frame and tore loose the bracket attaching the wheel assembly to the frame.
- As a result, the left front wheel collapsed rearward, striking the underside of the floorboard (toe pan) beneath Soule's feet.
- The impact from the wheel caused the toe pan to crumple upward into the passenger compartment.
- Soule suffered severe and permanently disabling compression fractures to both of her ankles.
- Soule claimed the wheel collapse was due to a manufacturing defect (a weak weld) and a design defect (the frame's configuration did not limit the wheel's rearward travel), which caused 'enhanced' injuries beyond what the accident alone would have caused.
Procedural Posture:
- Terri Soule sued General Motors (GM) in a California trial court, asserting a claim for strict product liability.
- Over GM's objection, the court instructed the jury it could find a design defect based on either the 'ordinary consumer expectations' test or the 'risk-benefit' test.
- The trial court refused GM's requested instruction that a defect was not a legal cause of injury if the plaintiff would have suffered the same injuries even with a proper design.
- The jury returned a special verdict for Soule, finding the Camaro had a defect that was a legal cause of her 'enhanced injury' and awarded her $1.65 million.
- GM, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no instructional error.
- The California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a products liability case involving a complex product design, may a jury be instructed on the 'ordinary consumer expectations' test if the product's performance and the circumstances of its failure are beyond the common experience of its users?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. A product's design may not be found defective under the ordinary consumer expectations test if the product's performance and failure are beyond the common experience of its users. The consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product's users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions. For complex products where ordinary consumers have no idea how they should perform in all foreseeable situations, the jury must use the risk-benefit test, which involves a technical balancing of factors like feasibility, cost, risk, and benefit. Here, the crashworthiness of an automobile, involving the precise behavior of obscure frame and suspension components under the complex circumstances of a specific accident, required expert testimony and a risk-benefit analysis. Instructing the jury on consumer expectations was therefore improper, though in this case the error was found to be harmless.
Concurring - Mosk, Acting C. J.
This opinion concurs in the majority's conclusion but objects to its reliance on the case of People v. Cahill. The author describes Cahill, which held that a coerced confession could be harmless error, as a 'cruel aberration in the law.' The author believes that citing Cahill for guidance reflects unfavorably on the court's integrity and was unnecessary to the majority's otherwise satisfactory analysis.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Arabian, J.
This opinion concurs with the majority that the trial court erred by instructing on the consumer expectations test and by refusing GM's specific causation instruction. However, it dissents from the conclusion that the causation instruction error was harmless. The author argues that a party is entitled to a specific instruction on its primary theory of the case, and the general 'substantial factor' instruction was too abstract. By refusing to instruct the jury that the defect was not a cause if the injuries would have occurred anyway, the court denied GM a fair hearing on a central part of its defense, which constitutes prejudicial error requiring reversal of the judgment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limited the application of the consumer expectations test in California product liability law, solidifying the primacy of the risk-benefit test for complex product design cases. It clarifies that Barker's two tests are not freely interchangeable; the nature of the alleged defect determines the appropriate standard. By requiring plaintiffs to use the more rigorous risk-benefit analysis for complex products like automobiles and medical devices, the ruling makes it more difficult to prove a design defect. This holding forces litigation involving such products to focus on technical evidence of feasible alternative designs and a balancing of costs and benefits, rather than on a juror's intuitive sense of what a consumer should expect.
