In Kim v. Toyota Motor Corporation, the Supreme Court today holds that a products liability defendant cannot use evidence that its design conforms with industry custom and practice to show that the manufacturer acted reasonably in adopting a challenged design, but it can use that evidence regarding whether “the product is as safely designed as it should be, considering the feasibility and cost of alternative designs.” [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in this case.] Rejecting two plaintiffs’ appeal to overturn a defense verdict, the court’s opinion by Justice Leondra Kruger, for five justices, says that industry custom and practice might help jurors apply the relevant risk-benefit analysis when they assess “whether the manufacturer has balanced the relevant considerations correctly.”
Pro tem Justice William Dato writes a concurring opinion, which Justice Goodwin Liu joins. He sees “nothing wrong” with generally barring defense use of custom and practice evidence. But he sees no reversible error in this particular case because the plaintiffs were the ones to initially introduce the evidence and because the lack of a limiting instruction was harmless.
The court affirms what it calls the “solid” opinion by the Second District, Division Seven, Court of Appeal. It disapproves a 2006 decision by the Fourth District, Division One, a 1981 opinion by the Fourth District, Division Two (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company), and a 1979 opinion by the Second District, Division Five.
