Supreme Court of California

Reset A A Font size: Print

Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 232754

Held that a defendant in a product liability action could introduce industry custom-and-practice evidence. The plaintiff, who alleged that he was severely injured in an accident because his pickup truck lacked a particular safety feature, objected to the fact that the jury was allowed to hear that no vehicle manufacturer at the time included this safety feature as standard equipment. Unpersuaded by his arguments, the California Supreme Court concluded that the custom-and-practice evidence was admissible for the limited purpose of helping the jury evaluate whether the product was as safely designed as it should be, considering the feasibility and cost of alternative designs.

Appellate Information

  • Decided
  • Published 2018/08/27


  • Kruger


  • Supreme Court of California