Demara v. The Raymond Corp.
D068533
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kawika Demara (worker) was struck and his foot crushed by the rear drive wheel of a Raymond 7400 series narrow-aisle reach forklift (the Subject Lift) while walking in a busy warehouse; the drive wheel was exposed at a rear corner and the lift had an optional flashing amber warning light top-mounted on an overhead guard.
- The Subject Lift was manufactured by Raymond to buyer specifications and sold by Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc.; plaintiff alleged strict products liability (design, manufacture, failure to warn) and negligence; manufacturing and failure-to-warn claims were later adjudicated on summary judgment and are not contested on appeal.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) plaintiffs could not show causation (design was not a substantial factor), (2) the consumer expectation test was inapplicable as a matter of law to this complex industrial product, and (3) under the risk-benefit test defendants proved the design's benefits outweighed risks.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on design/negligence claims; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding plaintiffs raised triable issues on causation and that defendants failed to carry their burdens to negate the consumer expectation and risk-benefit theories at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: whether plaintiff showed the design was a "substantial factor" | Demara's evidence (video, design features: exposed wheel, ineffective top-mounted light, eyewitness statements) creates more-than-negligible inference that design caused injury | Accident alone is insufficient; defendants asserted plaintiffs cannot show design was a substantial factor | Reversed: defendants did not make a prima facie showing to negate causation; plaintiffs raised triable issues (substantial-factor standard is broad) |
| Applicability of consumer expectation test | Consumer expectations of warehouse users about exposed wheel and light placement are within ordinary experience and jury may decide | Lift is a complex industrial product requiring technical analysis; consumer expectation test inapplicable as matter of law | Reversed: trial court erred; consumer expectation test can apply given the accident circumstances and the product features at issue |
| Applicability/result under risk-benefit test | Once plaintiff makes prima facie causation showing, burden shifts to defendants to prove benefits outweigh risks | Defendants' expert opined benefits of design; argued risk-benefit defeats claim | Reversed: defendants’ evidence addressed benefits but failed to present necessary evidence about risks, alternatives, feasibility/costs to shift burden; did not meet prima facie burden |
| Evidentiary objections on appeal | Plaintiffs argued trial court erred in evidentiary rulings | Defendants made objections too; court’s objection rulings were incomplete / untimely | Court declined to resolve evidentiary rulings on appeal and proceeded assuming objections overruled because reversal was required regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978) (establishes consumer expectation and risk-benefit tests for design defect)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (consumer expectation test applies when jurors can use everyday experience; risk-benefit requires technical proof)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (‘‘substantial factor’’ standard described as broad)
- Campbell v. General Motors Corp., 32 Cal.3d 112 (Cal. 1982) (application of both defect tests; causation standard discussion)
- McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (consumer expectation test can apply to technical products depending on circumstances)
- Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 187 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (consumer expectation instructions appropriate where product users’ ordinary knowledge permits minimum safety assumptions)
- Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 780 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant must present evidence that benefits outweigh risks to prevail on risk-benefit at summary judgment)
- Pietrone v. American Honda Motor Co., 189 Cal.App.3d 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (failure to guard exposed rotating wheel creates inference of defect; burden then shifts to defendant)