Alexander v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.

With all due respect, I dissent, as I believe plaintiff, Lenshonda Alexander, has established triable issues of fact as to whether defendant Lakeside Toyota breached its duty to plaintiff in failing to provide adequate warning.

The majority finds plaintiff failed to produce sufficient factual evidence of a defect due to inadequate warning under the Louisiana Products Liability Act La.Rev.Stat. § 9:2800 et seq. to withstand defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I disagree. Generally, whether a warning is adequate is a question for the trier of fact. Jack v. Alberto-Culver USA, Inc., 06-1883…