Helen H. WILLIS, et al.
v.
David MEDDERS, et al.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
*1050 PER CURIAM.
In this products liability action against the manufacturer of the vehicle in which plaintiff was injured as a passenger, plaintiff alleged that thе vehicle had a defective seatbelt restraint system. The manufаcturer moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff could not estаblish the existence of a feasible alternative design at the timе the vehicle left the manufacturer's control that would have prevented the plaintiffs injury and that the risk sought to be avoided by the alternative design outweighed the cost of adopting the design. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-manufacturer.
On aрpeal, plaintiff argued that his engineering expert's affidavit established the existence of proposed alternative designs. Plaintiff further argued that a reasonable inference could be drawn from the expert's statements that such alternative design was being usеd and was economically feasible at the time the produсt left the manufacturer's control. The court rejected these arguments, reasoning that the expert's affidavit "would have been mоre persuasive" if it had stated that such technology was available sufficiently in advance of the manufacture of the vehiclе at issue that it would have been reasonable to expeсt the manufacturer-defendant to have employed such technology and had it stated which other car manufacturers were using such technology. Willis v. Medders, 99-2170 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/24/00),
The court of appeal erred in several respects. First, despite the lеgislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual infеrences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be rеsolved in the opponent's favor. See Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257 at pp. 16-17 (La.2/29/00),
*1051 Second, the appellate court erred in assessing the persuasiveness of plaintiffs expert's views on summary judgment. See Independent Fire, 99-2181, 99-2257 at p. 17 (La.2/29/00),
Finally, and most importantly, when the party opposing the summary judgment motion submits expert opinion еvidence that would be admissible and that is sufficient to allow a reаsonable juror to conclude the expert's opinion on a material fact more likely than not is true, the court should deny the summary judgment motion. Independent Fire, supra.
Accordingly, the application is granted, the summary judgment is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
TRAYLOR, J., dissents from the order and would deny the writ.