N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LUPI EDWARDS, individually and a s de c e de nt Fia iloa Sa

upo Edwa

rds suc c e s sor-in-inte re st; R . S. A., a m inor by M ark Le ona

rd Sa llus a s Gua

rdia n Ad Lite m , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. FORD M O TOR

C OM PANY, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-55577 DC No. C V 12-10994 PA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a n d M ARB LEY, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAR 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Alge non L. M arble y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.Lupi Edwa rds a n d R .S.A. (“ a

ppe lla nts” ), suc c e ssors-in-inte re st to de c e de nt Fia i loa Edwa rds, a p pe a l from

a judgm e nt e nte re d pursua nt to a jury ve rdic t in fa

vor of Ford M otor C om

pa ny (“ Ford” ) on a

ppe lla nts’ c l a im tha t Fia i loa Edwa rds’
ve hic le wa s de fe c t ive ly

de signe d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. Fia iloa Edwa rds wa s driving south on Inte rstat e 5 in his 2002 Ford Explore r Sport Tra c , whe n tra ffic ah e a d of him a bruptly be ga n to slow. To a

v oid a c ollision, he ve e re d onto a

shoulde r a t

an initia l spe e d of sixty

m ile s pe r hour. At a

spe e d of 30 to 35 mile s pe r hour, his ve hic le rolle d a tota l of 2.75 tim e s. The roof of the
ve hic le c rushe d

e i ght inc he s ve rtic a lly

and six inc he s la

t e ra l ly . Edwa

rds die d from blunt forc e injurie s to his he a d , ne c k, a nd c he st. Appe lla nts sue d Ford. The y

a lle ge d tha

t the Explore r wa s de fe c tive ly de signe d be c a

use the roof wa s not suffic i e ntly rigid. Appe lla nts’ the ory

wa s tha t the roof should ha

v e only c rushe d two or thre e inc h e s ve rtic a l ly , rathe r tha n e ight inc h e s ve rtic a lly

and six inc he s la

te ra lly . B e fore tria l, the distric t c ourt gra nte d Ford’ s m otion in limine

to e xc lude e vide nc e and a rgum e n t on the c onsum e r

2e xpe c tations te st for de sign de fe c t lia bility . At tria l, the c ourt ga ve an instruc tion on the risk-be ne fit te st for de sign de fe c t lia b ility . The jury

found in Ford’ s favor. 1 Appe lla nts now a rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in gra nting Ford’ s m otion in limine and fa iling to give

an instruc tion on the

c onsum e r e xpe c tat ions te s t. Ford
c onte nds tha

t a ppe lla nts did not pre se rve the issue be l ow. 2 W e ne e d not de c ide tha t que stion be c a

use , e ve n a ssum ing the issue ha s be e n pre se rve d, the c onsum e r
e xpe c tations te st doe s not a p ply
. The c onsum e r e xpe c tat ions te st “ is re se rve d for c a se s in whic h the e ve ry da y
e xpe rie nc e of the produc t’ s use rs pe rm its a c o nc lusion tha

t the produc t’ s de sign viola te d m i nim

um sa fe ty a ssum ptions, a nd is thus de fe c tive re ga

rdle ss of e xpe rt opinion a bout them e rits of the de sign.” Soule v . Ge n. Motors C

orp. , 882 P.2d 298, 308 (C a l. 1994) (e m pha sis om itte d). “ [W ] he n the ultim ate issue of de sign de fe c t c a l ls for a

c are ful a sse ssm e n t of fe a sibility , pra c tic a lity , risk, a nd be ne fit, the
c a se should n ot

be re solve d sim

ply on the ba sis of ordina

ry c onsum e r
e xpe c tations.” Id. at 305 (e m pha sis a dde d). The distric t c ourt did not err in
e xc luding thec onsum e r e xpe c t ations te st unde r this sta nda rd. Drive rs’ e ve ry da

y

1 Appe lla

nts a lso a lle ge d tha

t the ve hic le wa s de fe c tive be c a use it la c ke d a rollove r-a c tiva

te d side -c urta in a irba g. Appe l la nts do not pursue

tha t c la im on a ppe a l
. 2 The distric t c ourt m a de “ t e ntative ” rulings on this issue at a se rie s of pre t ria l he arings. 3e xpe rie nc e s do not a llow for theform at ion of re a sona b le e xpe c tations a s to the de gre e tha

t a ve hic le ’ s roof should c rush during a rollove r. M ore ove r, a

ppe lla nts’ the o ry of roof de fe c t c a lle d for e xpe rt opinion by a struc t ura l e ngine e r, who
a sse sse d the fe a sibility , risks, a nd be ne fits of the Explore r’ s roof a s c om pa re d to a roof re inforc e d with poly ure tha ne foam and high-gra de ste e l
. Appe lla nts c onte nd tha

t the distric t c ourt should ha ve give n the m

the opportunity

to show tha

t c o nsum e rs do ha

ve e xpe c tations a s to the am ount of
a c c e pta b le roof de form ation during a rollove r. W e are unpe rsua de d. Although pla i ntiffs m ay

introduc e , for e xam

ple , owne rs’ m anua ls or a dve rtise m e nts to show what c onsum e rs e xpe c t

of a pa rtic ula r ve hic le , a

ppe lla nts do not c la im

to ha ve any
suc h e v ide nc e . Se e

, e .g. , Mansur v . Ford Motor C o. , 129 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 200, 211 (C t. App. 2011). Appe lla nts a lso point out tha

t “ the inhe re nt c om

ple xity of the produc t itse lf is not c ontrolling on the

issue of whe the r the c onsum e r e xpe c tations te st a pplie s.” Se e R omine

v . J o h nson C ontrols, Inc

. , 169 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 208, 217 (C t. App. 2014). While tha t m ay be true , our de c ision is not ba s e d on the c o m ple xity of the produc t, but ra the r the la c k of c o n sum e r e xpe c tations re g arding the e xte nt to whic h the Explore r’ s roof would c rush in a m ultiplerollove r a c c ide nt.

4The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t the “ o rdina

ry c onsum e r of
a utom obile s c annot re a sona b ly e xpe c t tha

t a c ar’ s fram e ” would re m a in inta c t unde r those c irc um sta

nc e s. Se e Soule , 882 P.2d a t 310. AFFIRM E D
.

5