Barker v. Lull Engineering Co

In Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, the California Supreme Court explained that a product can be found defective under one of two tests: the consumer expectations test, or the risk-benefit test. Under the consumer expectations test, a product is defective in design if the plaintiff proves that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. (Ibid.) Alternatively and as applicable here, under the risk-benefit test, a product is defective in design if the plaintiff proves that the product's design proximately caused injury and the defendant fails to prove, in light of the relevant factors, that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. (Barker, at pp. 430-432) "A product may be found defective in design, even if it satisfies ordinary consumer expectations, if through hindsight the jury determines that the product's design embodies 'excessive preventable danger,' or, in other words, if the jury finds that the risk of danger inherent in the challenged design outweighs the benefits of such design. A review of past cases indicates that in evaluating the adequacy of a product's design pursuant to this latter standard, a jury may consider, among other relevant factors, the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design." (Barker, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 430-431) The California Supreme Court set out to clarify the murky law of strict product liability based on design defect. The court distinguished a design defect from a manufacturing defect. The latter allows for ready identification because the product differs from the manufacturer's intended result or from other supposedly identical products. In contrast the court identified two types of design defect: "A design defect . . . cannot be identified simply by comparing the injury-producing product with the manufacturer's plans or with other units of the same product line, since by definition the plans and all such units will reflect the same design. . . . First, . . . a product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. . . . Under this standard, an injured plaintiff will frequently be able to demonstrate the defectiveness of a product by resort to circumstantial evidence, even when the accident itself precludes identification of the specific defect at fault. " (Barker, supra, at pp. 429-430.) Barker also recognized a second class of design defect cases in which the benefits of the challenged design outweighed the risk inherent in the design. ( Id. at p. 431.)