Demara v. Raymond Corp.
13 Cal. App. 5th 545
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kawika Demara was walking in a busy warehouse when a Raymond 7400 series narrow-aisle reach forklift (the Subject Lift) backed and turned, and its exposed rear drive wheel ran over and crushed his foot, causing permanent injury.
- The Subject Lift has an exposed left-rear drive wheel (cutout in the lower skirt) and an optional flashing amber warning light top‑mounted on the overhead guard; Demara did not see the lift or its light before the injury.
- Plaintiffs sued RHSI and Raymond for products liability (strict liability and negligence), alleging defects in design, manufacture, and warnings; defendants moved for summary judgment/adjudication.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding (1) Plaintiffs failed to raise triable issues of causation, (2) consumer expectation test inapplicable as a matter of law, and (3) under the risk‑benefit test defendants showed the design’s benefits outweighed risks; it also granted summary adjudication of manufacturing-defect and failure-to-warn claims (unopposed).
- Court of Appeal reversed: held Plaintiffs raised triable causation issues, defendants failed to show consumer expectation inapplicable, and defendants did not carry the burden under risk‑benefit to shift proof to Plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation — was the design a substantial factor? | Demara: exposed wheel and light placement caused injury; circumstantial evidence and accident video create more‑than‑negligible inference of causation. | Raymond: occurrence of accident alone does not prove design caused injury; no evidence design was a substantial factor. | Held: Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create triable issue; defendants’ bare assertion did not meet initial summary judgment burden. |
| Applicability of Consumer Expectation Test | Demara: ordinary users (warehouse pedestrians/workers) can form minimum safety expectations about guards and light placement; jurors can evaluate under consumer test. | Raymond: Subject Lift is complex industrial equipment; resolving safety requires technical/expert analysis, so consumer test inapplicable. | Held: Consumer test can apply here; relevant features (unguarded wheel, light location) are within ordinary experience of product users — defendant failed to show consumer test inapplicable as a matter of law. |
| Risk‑Benefit Test — did defendant carry burden to show benefits outweigh risks? | Demara: created prima facie causation; defendants must present evidence of benefits vs. risks and feasible alternatives. | Raymond: its expert described benefits of design and light placement, asserting design justified. | Held: Defendant’s expert testimony only asserted benefits without evidence of risks or alternative designs; insufficient to meet defendant’s prima facie burden under risk‑benefit. |
| Evidentiary Objections / Summary adjudication of other claims | Plaintiffs: objected to some defense evidence; did not oppose summary adjudication of manufacturing/failure-to-warn issues on appeal. | Defendants: raised objections to portions of Plaintiffs’ evidence; trial court’s later rulings lacked jurisdiction. | Held: Appellate court did not resolve evidentiary objections; treated record as if objections overruled and found any evidentiary errors non‑prejudicial; affirmed summary adjudication of manufacturing and failure‑to‑warn claims per parties’ positions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (California 1978) (establishes consumer‑expectation and risk‑benefit alternative tests for design defect)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (California 1994) (explains limits of consumer‑expectation test and when expert proof is required for risk‑benefit)
- Rutherford v. Owens‑Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (California 1997) (describes substantial‑factor causation standard as relatively broad)
- Campbell v. General Motors Corp., 32 Cal.3d 112 (California 1982) (consumer‑expectation test appropriate where jurors can assess product’s objective features)
- McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 (California Ct. App. 2002) (consumer test can apply to complex products when circumstances permit lay inference)
- Pietrone v. American Honda Motor Co., 189 Cal.App.3d 1057 (California Ct. App. 1987) (once plaintiff shows exposed hazardous part caused injury, burden shifts to manufacturer to justify design)
- Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 780 (California Ct. App. 2007) (defendant must present evidence that benefits of design outweigh risks to prevail on summary judgment)