50 Cal.App.5th 636
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Gary Verrazono, an experienced telehandler operator, was seriously injured and lost his right arm and leg when the 28,000 lb Gehl telehandler he was operating tipped over at Sonoma Raceway in 2012.
- The telehandler had a rollover protective cage, a removable door (sold with a door that had been removed post-sale), a two‑point lap belt, a frame‑level system, and multiple warnings/instructions (including not to operate on slopes >10° or travel with the boom elevated).
- Verrazono was not wearing the lap belt; the slope at the accident site was 25–33° and the boom was elevated ~27° when the machine tipped.
- Plaintiff sued Gehl for negligence and strict products liability (design defect), alleging the machine was defective because it lacked a nonremovable door, a multi‑point belt, and interlocks preventing operation without a door or a buckled belt.
- Competing experts disagreed: plaintiff’s experts said a door/interlock would have prevented ejection and cost/feasibility were reasonable; Gehl’s experts said a belt is the primary restraint, nonremovable doors would impede repairs/structural integrity, and interlocks could create other hazards.
- Jury returned defense verdict (no defect / no negligence). Trial court denied plaintiff’s new‑trial motion; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on the ordinary consumer expectations test for design defect | Verrazono: ejection in a rollover and resulting amputation were contrary to ordinary users’ safety expectations; jurors could assess design defects (door, stronger belt, interlocks) under consumer expectations | Gehl: plaintiff offered only expert-driven proof on feasibility and tradeoffs; the claimed defects involve technical balancing and competing safety risks, so only the risk‑benefit (Barker) test applies | Court: No error—consumer expectations test inapplicable because resolution required expert analysis of feasibility, practicality, risks and benefits (risk‑benefit test appropriate) |
| Whether the court’s use of CACI No. 5013 (deadlock/dynamite) coerced the jury | Verrazono: instruction coerced a reluctant jury into a verdict (jury deliberated 15 minutes after instruction) | Gehl: instruction tracked approved, noncoercive language and was permissible under court rules | Court: Instruction was not coercive under the circumstances; language and context (and precedent) support use and verdict stands |
| Whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence | Verrazono: evidence showed design defects and alternatives were feasible and inexpensive | Gehl: record contains substantial evidence supporting verdict (door was sold with machine and removed later, belt complied with standards, design conformed to industry norms, interlocks problematic); plaintiff forfeited a full sufficiency challenge by omitting adverse record evidence on appeal | Court: Plaintiff forfeited a complete sufficiency challenge by failing to cite material adverse evidence; in any event, the record contains substantial evidence supporting the defense verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (explains Barker’s two design‑defect tests and limits on consumer‑expectations applicability)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978) (establishes alternative tests for design defect: consumer expectations and risk‑benefit)
- Campbell v. General Motors Corp., 32 Cal.3d 112 (Cal. 1982) (example where consumer expectations test was suitable because the defect was assessable from everyday experience)
- Demara v. The Raymond Corp., 13 Cal.App.5th 545 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (forklift case discussing when consumer‑expectations test may apply even for complex machinery)
- Inouye v. Pacific Southwest Airlines, 126 Cal.App.3d 648 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (upholds noncoercive deadlock instruction; used to evaluate whether dynamite instruction coerced jury)
- Cook v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp., 13 Cal.2d 591 (Cal. 1939) (discusses impermissible coercion by a trial judge telling a jury they must agree)