Summary
The court addresses three pretrial issues in a products-liability action involving an alleged defect in a Honda Talon: the consumer expectations test, the admissibility of marketing videos, and the state-of-the-art affirmative defense. The court explains that the consumer expectations test requires a connection between the alleged defect and consumer expectations, declines to admit the proffered videos absent sufficient foundational relevance, and permits the defendant to pursue the state-of-the-art defense subject to establishing its requirements before jury instructions are given.
Holdings
- The consumer-expectations test is a strict-liability standard focused on the condition of the product, not the defendant's conduct. Plaintiff need not prove negligent conduct but must show that something was wrong with the product and that the condition caused it to be unreasonably dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
- An earlier order finding that some photographs and advertisements were probative and relevant did not rule that every authenticated advertisement or marketing video would be admitted. Plaintiff had not yet established sufficient foundation for relevance because the proffered videos were not adequately connected to the individual facts of the case, particularly the alleged defect.
- The state-of-the-art affirmative defense would not be precluded in advance. Defendant would be required to satisfy all requirements for the defense before the court would instruct the jury on it.
Questions Presented
- What must a plaintiff establish under the consumer-expectations test for a design-defect claim?
- Did an earlier order concerning the relevance of some Honda photographs and advertisements require admission of all authenticated marketing videos proffered by plaintiff?
- Should the defendant's state-of-the-art affirmative defense be precluded before trial because of the asserted lack of sufficient expert testimony?
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (2)
- Gomulka v. Yavapai Machine and Auto Parts, Inc., 745 P.2d 986(followed in reasoning)
- Feuerstein v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 2014 WL 2557122(applied by analogy)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…