The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that, where a design is beyond the common experience or knowledge of the average layperson, a defective or negligent design case cannot succeed unless the plaintiff presents evidence “as to the relevant standard of care for the design and the way(s) in which the defendant’s design fell below that standard.” The court further rejected a “common sense” approach to the standard of care and commented that appropriate evidence of such standard will usually be in the form of expert testimony. Vasquez-Filippetti v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, No. 06-1432 (Sept. 27, 2007).
In reaching its holding, the court, which is charged with reviewing appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, conducted an interesting review of Puerto Rico law concerning defective product design claims:
(1) In addressing defective product design claims, Puerto Rico has generally followed the example set by California, which allows a plaintiff to prevail under either of two standards: (1) “the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner;” or (2) “the product’s design proximately caused [the plaintiff’s] injury and the defendant fails to prove, in light of the relevant factors . . . that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.”
(2) “Under either prong, expert testimony is necessary to define the standard of care whenever the design of the relevant product is beyond the experience or knowledge of an average lay person.”
(3) In both product design cases and negligent design cases outside the product context, the Puerto Rico commonwealth and federal courts have repeatedly dismissed cases on the basis that plaintiffs failed to introduce expert evidence as to the applicable standard of care.
Having considered this framework, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the applicable standard of care was within the experience or knowledge of a layperson. The court then found the plaintiff’s failure to introduce expert evidence on the applicable standard of care to be fatal to her claim. As a result, the appeals court found the lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law to have been in error and overturned the jury’s six million dollar verdict reached below.
A full copy of the court’s opinion can be found here.
In reaching its holding, the court, which is charged with reviewing appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, conducted an interesting review of Puerto Rico law concerning defective product design claims:
(1) In addressing defective product design claims, Puerto Rico has generally followed the example set by California, which allows a plaintiff to prevail under either of two standards: (1) “the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner;” or (2) “the product’s design proximately caused [the plaintiff’s] injury and the defendant fails to prove, in light of the relevant factors . . . that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.”
(2) “Under either prong, expert testimony is necessary to define the standard of care whenever the design of the relevant product is beyond the experience or knowledge of an average lay person.”
(3) In both product design cases and negligent design cases outside the product context, the Puerto Rico commonwealth and federal courts have repeatedly dismissed cases on the basis that plaintiffs failed to introduce expert evidence as to the applicable standard of care.
Having considered this framework, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the applicable standard of care was within the experience or knowledge of a layperson. The court then found the plaintiff’s failure to introduce expert evidence on the applicable standard of care to be fatal to her claim. As a result, the appeals court found the lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law to have been in error and overturned the jury’s six million dollar verdict reached below.
A full copy of the court’s opinion can be found here.
