Legal Opinion

Moreno v. Fey Manufacturing Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 21, 1983No. Civ. 53206PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KING, J.

In this case we hold that when a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that his injury was proximately caused by a product’s design, it is reversible error to instruct the jury that plaintiff has the burden of proving that the product was defective in design. We further hold that erroneously placing this burden of proof upon plaintiff, even where the evidence on the defective design issue appears to favor defendant, cannot be harmless error because of the fundamental importance of instructions to the jury as to who bears the burden of proving the most crucial issue in the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Cervantez v. J. C. Penney Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Campbell v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Levy-Zentner Co. v. SOUTHERN PAC. TRANSPORTATIONCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Doupnik v. General Motors Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  2. Lunghi v. Clark Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1984
  3. Perez v. VAS S.p.A.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. Thomas v. LuskCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  5. Bernal v. Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1990

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API