|
0703 In the trial of a strict products liability claim, if the product is within the ordinary consumer's range of experience, it is appropriate for the trial court to define "product defect" in terms of reasonable consumer expectation; if the product is only likely to be within the experience of a special group of consumers, it may still be appropriate to use that definition, with the jury receiving guidance from expert witnesses about what a reasonable member of the special group would expect; however, if there is not even a special group of consumers who are likely to have experience regarding the product or accident, it is not appropriate to define "product defect" in such terms. Trial court errors should not result in reversal unless they are likely to have affected the outcome of the trial, and this must be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than by reference to any notion or doctrine of "inherent prejudice."
SOULE v GMC (Toe Pan) 8 C4 548 [See: Greenman v Yuba 59 C2 57; REST(2) Torts 402A; Cronin v Olson 8 C3 121; Barker v Lull 20 C3 413; BAJI 9.00.5; People v Cahill 5 C4 478]
|
|