Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
214 Cal. App. 4th 173
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Garrett sues Howmedica and Stryker for strict liability design and manufacturing defects, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, and negligence related to an implanted prosthesis.
- The implant was inserted in 2007; a fatigue fracture occurred in 2009, leading to replacement with a different prosthesis.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; Kashar (metallurgist) and Burstein (engineer) declarations were key evidentiary submissions.
- The court held design-defect strict liability is inapplicable to implanted devices; Kashar’s declaration created triable issues of fact as to manufacturing defect and negligence; judgment reversed.
- The disposition directs vacating the summary-judgment order and granting summary adjudication on certain counts while denying others; costs awarded to Garrett.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether design-defect strict liability applies to implanted devices | Garrett argues design defect liability should apply | Howmedica/Stryker rely on Hufft/Artiglio exemption | Design defect liability inapplicable to implanted devices |
| Whether Kashar’s declaration was properly excluded under Evidence Code 801-802 | Kashar’s testing basis is adequate for opposition | Kashar lacked adequate testing description and foundation | Exclusion of portions was an abuse of discretion; liberal construction applied |
| Whether Kashar creates triable issues of manufacturing defect and causation | Material differences from intended design show defect and causation | Burstein testimony shows no defect; testing gaps undermine Kashar | Triable issues of fact preclude summary adjudication on manufacturing defect and negligence |
| Whether the trial court’s rulings on expert testimony foreclose Garrett’s design-defect claim | Expert testimony supports design defect/manufacturing issues | Gatekeeping invalidates Kashar’s opinions | Gatekeeping error; liberal construction requires consideration of Kashar’s opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1049 (Cal. 1988) (drug design defect liability; design defect exempt for prescription drugs; public policy considerations)
- Hufft v. Horowitz, 4 Cal.App.4th 8 (Cal. App. 1992) (implanted medical devices exempt from design-defect strict liability)
- Artiglio v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1388 (Cal. App. 1994) (confirms exemption applies to implanted medical devices via physician services)
- Plenger v. Alza Corp., 11 Cal.App.4th 349 (Cal. App. 1992) (applies Brown/Hufft principles to prescription implanted devices)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012) (gatekeeping of expert testimony under Evid. Code 801-802; do not weigh conclusions)