Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Soule v. General Motors Corp.

Soule v. General Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of California

October 27, 1994, Decided

No. S033144.

Opinion

 [*556]  [**301]  [***610]    BAXTER, J. 

Plaintiff's ankles were badly injured when her General Motors (GM) car collided with another vehicle. She sued GM, asserting that defects in her automobile allowed its left front wheel to break free, collapse rearward, and smash the floorboard into her feet. GM denied any defect and claimed that the force of the collision itself was the sole cause of the injuries. Expert witnesses debated the issues at length. Plaintiff prevailed at trial, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.

We granted review to resolve three questions. First, may a product's design be found defective on grounds that the product's performance fell below the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer (see Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 426-432 [143 Cal.Rptr.  [****3]  225, 573 P.2d 443, 96 A.L.R.3d 1]) if the question of how safely the product should have performed cannot be answered by the common experience of its users? Second, in an action for enhanced collision injuries caused by an uncrashworthy vehicle, where a correct general instruction on legal cause is given, is it error to refuse a defense instruction that any defect cannot be a legal cause of injury if the accident would have produced the same injury even without the defect? Third, if the refusal is error, is it reversible per se? (See, e.g., Self v. General Motors Corp. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 1, 10-11 [116 Cal.Rptr. 575].)

We reach the following conclusions: The trial court erred by giving an "ordinary consumer expectations" instruction in this complex case. Moreover, the court should have granted GM's request for a special instruction explaining its correct theory of legal cause. However, neither error warrants reversal unless it caused actual prejudice, and both errors were harmless on this record. We will therefore affirm the Court of Appeal's judgment.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

8 Cal. 4th 548 *; 882 P.2d 298 **; 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607 ***; 1994 Cal. LEXIS 6027 ****; 94 Daily Journal DAR 15133; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8207; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14,046

TERRI F. SOULE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant.

Prior History:  [****1]  Superior Court of Orange County, No. 434587, James J. Alfano, Judge.

Disposition: The trial court erred when it instructed on the consumer expectations test for design defect, and when it refused GM's special instruction on causation. However, neither error caused actual prejudice. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, upholding the trial court judgment in favor of plaintiff, is affirmed.

CORE TERMS

design defect, instructions, injuries, ordinary consumer, manufacturer, consumer expectation, collision, trial court, causation, ankle, ordinary consumer expectations, expectations, cases, circumstances, prejudicial, consumer, wheel, bracket, safely, harmless, probable, pan, toe, actual prejudice, confessions, enhanced, products, reversal, italics, substantial factor

Torts, Products Liability, Types of Defects, Design Defects, Manufacturing Defects, Theories of Liability, Negligence, Civil Procedure, Jury Trials, Jury Instructions, General Overview, Standards of Review, Harmless & Invited Errors, Transportation Torts, Motor Vehicles, Causation, Proximate Cause, Appeals, Standards of Review, Jurors, Misconduct, Criminal Law & Procedure, Reversible Error