Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.

Facts

In August 1970, Barker was hurt at a University of California construction site at Santa Cruz while he ran a high-lift loader. Lull Engineering made the loader, and Philpott leased it to Barker's employer. The loader, manufactured in 1967, was heavy equipment built to lift loads of up to 5,000 pounds to a height of 32 feet. It had four-wheel drive, an automatic transmission with no park position and a hand brake. It had no seat belts and no roll bar. A lever between the operator's legs controlled the leveling of the load, and the lever had a manual lock. The regular operator did not come to work, so Barker, who had little instruction and had run the loader only a few times, took his place. He tried to lift lumber to about 18 to 20 feet on sharply sloping ground. Coworkers thought the load was tipping and shouted at him to jump. He jumped, and falling lumber struck him. Barker said design defects caused the accident: no outriggers (mechanical arms that steady the machine), no roll bar or seat belts, the leveling lever's placement and lack of an automatic lock, and no park position. The defendants denied any defect and blamed Barker's inexperience or misuse.

Issues

1. Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that strict liability for a design defect rests on a finding that the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, or does Cronin's rejection of that term reach only manufacturing defects?
2. How may a trial court define design defect for a jury in a strict product liability case, and which side bears the burden of proof on the risk-benefit test?

Holding

The "unreasonably dangerous for its intended use" instruction was error, because Cronin's rejection of that language covers design defects too. A trial judge may instead give the two-part design defect definition. The error was not harmless, so the judgment for the defendants was reversed.