TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's cause of action for strict product liability is based on the theories of design defect and manufacturing defect.
"... Defective design may be established under two theories: (1) the consumer expectations test, which asks whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner; or (2) the risk/benefit test, which asks whether the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design. [Citations.] Both theories may be presented to [a] jury. [Citation.]" (Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 (Cal.App.4th 1220, 1231–1232, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 (Saller).)
"The consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the products' users permits a conclusion that the product's design violated minimum
Hearing Date
September 05, 2019
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's cause of action for strict product liability is based on the theories of design defect and manufacturing defect.
"... Defective design may be established under two theories: (1) the consumer expectations test, which asks whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner; or (2) the risk/benefit test, which asks whether the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design. [Citations.] Both theories may be presented to [a] jury. [Citation.]" (Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 (Cal.App.4th 1220, 1231–1232, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 (Saller).)
"The consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the products' users permits a conclusion that the product's design violated minimum