Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc.
191 Cal. App. 4th 1298
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pannu suffered a severe spinal injury resulting in quadriplegia after a Land Rover Discovery rolled over following multiple collisions on the 118 Freeway.
- Pannu sued Land Rover North America, Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, and Land Rover Encino for strict liability based on defective design, including stability and roof defects, and for failure to warn.
- A bench trial awarded $21,654,000 to Pannu, finding stability and roof defects caused the injuries and that Land Rover failed to warn of dangerous propensities.
- Land Rover challenged the decision, arguing improper use of the consumer expectation test, misapplication of the risk-benefit test, and evidentiary exclusions; it also contended there was no substantial evidence of the claimed defects.
- Two experts supported Pannu: Kobayashi (stability/rollover mechanism) and Heitzman (roof strength tests), while Land Rover defended with Carr (tripping mechanism) and Raphael (axial loading injury).
- The trial court found causation and defect under both the consumer expectation and risk-benefit tests, and also held Land Rover liable for failure to warn; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consumer expectation test applies to stability and roof defects | Pannu: consumer expectation test applicable to these defects. | Land Rover: test not appropriate due to complexity of rollover dynamics. | Appellate: consumer expectation test is exceedingly close but not clearly inappropriate; risk-benefit also supported. |
| Whether the design defects were proven under the risk-benefit test | Pannu established feasible, low-cost design improvements reducing risk. | Land Rover: benefits of design outweighed risks; no proof of excessive danger. | Held: risk-benefit analysis supported liability due to excess preventable danger and feasible safer alternatives. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports causation of injury by defects despite no skid marks | Pannu's experts' reconstructions support a defect-caused rollover. | Land Rover: lack of skid marks undermines causation. | Held: substantial evidence supports causation without relying on skid marks; conflicts resolved in Pannu's favor. |
| Whether exclusion of Malibu/CRIS tests and FMVSS 216 evidence was abuse of discretion | Exclusion deprived jurors of relevant context to causation. | Exclusion appropriate to prevent confusion; FMVSS 216 not controlling for this vehicle. | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence properly limited with no prejudice. |
| Whether the economic damages award is supported by substantial evidence | Loss of earning capacity as a franchise owner/vice president proved substantial damages. | Argues mismeasurement or improper basis for damages. | Held: substantial evidence supports the economic damages award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (two design-defect tests: consumer expectation and risk-benefit)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978) (design defect burden shifting under risk-benefit test)
- McCabe v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111 (Cal. App. 2002) (applies consumer expectation vs. risk-benefit in design defect)
- Culpepper v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 33 Cal.App.3d 510 (Cal. App. 1973) (emergency situations and foreseeability in rollover contexts)
- Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2008) (duty to warn in strict liability; knowledge of dangers at manufacture)
- Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539 (Cal. 1993) (standards for admissibility of safety-evidence and regulatory compliance relevance)