Luque v. McLean

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityStrict liabilityAssumption of riskJury instructionsstrict liabilityproducts liabilitydefect

Facts

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on wet grass and his hand entered an unguarded front hole of a rotary power lawn mower whose blade revolved at extreme speed. There was evidence that plaintiff had been instructed on the mower's operation and on the danger of putting a hand in the unguarded hole. Plaintiff's expert testified the mower was very hazardous because of the unguarded hole and that a simple, inexpensive device could have prevented the injury, while defendants' expert testified the mower was not defective and exceeded applicable safety standards. The trial court instructed the jury that plaintiff had the burden of proving, among other things, that he was not aware of the defect at the time of the accident.

Issue

In a strict products liability case, must the plaintiff prove not only that the product had a defect that proximately caused the injury, but also that the plaintiff was not aware of the defect at the time of the accident? Relatedly, was it error to instruct the jury that plaintiff bore that burden?

Rule

A plaintiff in strict products liability meets his burden by establishing the elements of the Greenman formulation: that the product placed on the market proves to have a defect that causes injury while being used as intended or reasonably for its designed purpose. The plaintiff need not prove that he was unaware of the defect. Plaintiff awareness does not create an additional element of the claim or a latent-defect requirement; rather, awareness is relevant only to the defense of assumption of risk, and the defendant bears the burden of proving that defense. Ordinary contributory negligence does not bar recovery in strict liability; only voluntary and unreasonable encounter of a known danger does.

🔒

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 Fresno, Nora Kim bought a countertop vegetable slicer made by Sierra Crest Kitchenworks and sold by Valley Home Supply. While using it to slice carrots in the ordinary way, her hand was pulled into an exposed opening near the blade, and she sued the manufacturer and retailer on a strict products liability theory.

Which additional fact, if any, must Nora prove as part of her prima facie strict liability case?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, the plaintiff's burden in strict products liability is satisfied by proving the product had a defect, the defect caused the injury, and the product was being used as intended or reasonably for its designed purpose. The plaintiff need not prove lack of awareness of the defect, and no latent-defect requirement exists. (Derived from Luque v. McLean (n.d.).)