P1334 In a product liability action based on the allegation that injuries resulted from a defective motorcycle stand, defendant met its initial burden on summary judgment by submitting evidence that it was not the manufacturer of the stand; the burden then shifted to plaintiff to show there is a triable issue regarding ownership; declarations of plaintiff's experts stating that they compared the motorcycle stand to exemplars and found that it was similar to them, but failing to identify the exemplars as having been made by defendant, were not sufficient to satisfy plaintiff's burden; a supplemental declaration by plaintiff's attorney stating that the experts told her that they received the exemplars from someone who said they were made by defendant and that the box in which the exemplars were packaged bore defendant's name and logo was inadmissible as double hearsay and was not sufficient to meet plaintiff's burden.

DICOLA v WHITE BROS (Motorcycle Stand) 158 CA4 666 [See: EvC 1200; McCreery v Eli Lilly 87 CA3 77]