William Jae Kim, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Toyota Motor Corporation, Defendants and Respondents.

Summary

The court held that evidence of industry custom and practice is not admissible to establish that a manufacturer acted reasonably or to provide a complete defense to a strict products liability claim. Such evidence may nevertheless be relevant and admissible under the risk-benefit test when it sheds light on design feasibility, cost, safety, functionality, causation, or the trade-offs involved in alternative designs. Because the evidence was relevant for those limited purposes, the court affirmed.