Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co.

California Court of Appeal · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityDesign defectProduct identificationNonsuitnonsuitstrict products liability

Facts

Plaintiff's eye was injured during a fencing bout when his opponent's sabre penetrated plaintiff's fencing mask. Evidence permitted an inference that the blade used was defectively thin and sharp, but the specific blade was lost after the accident and the evidence showed only that it had been supplied either by American or by Vince, not which one. Plaintiff's mask had been purchased from Vince about one month earlier and was produced and tested at trial. Plaintiff's own experts testified there was no manufacturing defect in the mask's wire mesh, that a sharp-edged sabre had penetrated it, and that a sharp-cornered sabre could penetrate any standard fencing mask.

Issue

As to American, whether evidence that one of two defendants supplied the defective blade, without showing which one, is enough to let a jury impose products-liability responsibility on either defendant. As to Vince, whether evidence that plaintiff was injured by a sabre penetrating a mask during fencing establishes a prima facie strict-liability design-defect case against the mask manufacturer.

Rule

A nonsuit is proper when, even giving plaintiff's evidence all legitimate inferences, there is no substantial evidence supporting a verdict for plaintiff. In products liability, the plaintiff must first prove that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was otherwise responsible for the injury-causing product; equal evidence that either of two defendants supplied it is insufficient and does not shift the burden under Summers v. Tice. In a design-defect strict-liability case, the plaintiff's prima facie burden includes proof that the product was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner and that the product design proximately caused the injury; speculation that a design feature might have caused the harm is not enough.

🔒

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.

During a collegiate lacrosse match in Columbus, Ohio, Evan Price was struck in the face when a metal throat guard snapped and cut through his helmet lining. The broken guard was discarded after the game, and the evidence showed only that the team bought identical replacement guards from either Lakefront Athletic Works or Prairie Field Outfitters, but no witness could say which company's guard had been installed in Evan's helmet.

If Evan sues Lakefront Athletic Works on a strict products liability theory, is the claim likely to survive a motion for nonsuit?

Explanation. A plaintiff must first present substantial evidence that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was otherwise responsible for the specific injury-causing product. Proof that the product came from one of two possible suppliers, with no evidence identifying which one, leaves liability to conjecture and supports nonsuit. The burden does not shift merely because the product was lost. (Derived from Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co. (n.d.).)