Apportionment Of Fault In Product Liability Trial.

A vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed slammed into a line of vehicles stopped at an intersection, thus propelling a vehicle into the back of plaintiff’s Nissan Frontier pickup truck. The force of the collision caused plaintiff’s seatback to collapse and plaintiff to slide up the seat. Plaintiff’s head struck her vehicle’s back seat, and she suffered spinal injuries that rendered her a quadriplegic. Plaintiff brought an action for her injuries against various persons and entities including the only remaining defendants at trial, Ikeda Engineering Corporation (Ikeda), which participated in the design of her vehicle’s seat, and Vintec Co. (Vintec), which manufactured her vehicle’s seat.Plaintiff tried her strict products liability action to a jury on a consumer expectations design defect theory. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $24,744,764, and found that defendants were 20 percent at fault for her injuries. After offsets for settlements with other defendants and an award of costs to plaintiff, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $4,606,926.68. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, stating: “ Because Ikeda could not be held strictly liable for engineering services it provided and the trial court erred in barring defendants from apportionment of fault for plaintiff’s injuries to other manufacturers, we reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a retrial limited to the issue of apportionment of fault. The jury’s finding of defendants’ liability, except as to Ikeda, and its finding that plaintiff suffered damages of $24,744,764 are affirmed and are not to be a part of the retrial. ” (Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 5; March 17, 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990, [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 208].)