Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.

Supreme Court of California · 1978 · Torts

Tortsproducts liabilitydesign defectconsumer expectationsrisk-utilitystrict liabilitydesign defectconsumer expectations

Facts

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site while operating a 1967 Lull high-lift loader manufactured by defendant and leased to plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff claimed the loader was defectively designed because it lacked outriggers, a roll bar, seat belts, an automatic lock or safer placement for the leveling lever, and a park position on the transmission, and that one or more of these defects caused the accident and his injuries. Defendants denied any defect and argued the accident resulted from plaintiff's inexperience or misuse, including operation on steep terrain for which the loader was unsuited. The trial court instructed the jury that strict liability for a design defect was based on a finding that the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, and the jury found for defendants.

Issue

May a court instruct a jury in a California strict products liability design-defect case that liability depends on finding the product unreasonably dangerous for its intended use? If not, what standard should govern the definition of design defect and how should the burden of proof be allocated under that standard?

Rule

In California, a product is defective in design if either (1) the plaintiff proves the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) the plaintiff proves the product's design proximately caused injury and the defendant fails to prove, in light of relevant factors, that the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in that design. The Restatement's 'unreasonably dangerous' formulation should not be used, and defectiveness must be evaluated in light of reasonably foreseeable use, not merely intended use. Under the risk-benefit test, once plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the injury was proximately caused by the product's design, the burden of proof shifts to defendant to show the product is not defective.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Elena Cruz was injured when a household juicer suddenly ejected its lid during ordinary countertop use, even though she had assembled it as instructed. She sues the manufacturer in strict liability, alleging a design defect.

Which instruction best states the proper California standard for design defect?

Explanation. California uses a dual test for strict-liability design defect. A plaintiff may prevail by showing either failure to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect in intended or reasonably foreseeable use, or by showing the design proximately caused injury and the defendant then fails to prove that the benefits of the challenged design outweigh its inherent risks. The case rejects any requirement that the plaintiff prove the product was "unreasonably dangerous," and it focuses on the product rather than the manufacturer’s conduct.