Opinion ID: 1387072
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Who Has Burden of Proof?

Text: ARCO argues that the burden of proof test established by this court in Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1979), is inappropriate in this case. Beck states: We hold that the plaintiff need only show that he was injured and that the injury was proximately caused by the product's design. The defendant may then avoid liability for a defectively designed product by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, on balance, the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. Id. at 885 (quoting Barker v. Lull Eng'g Co., Inc., 20 Cal.3d 413, 143 Cal. Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, 458 (Cal. 1978)). ARCO contends that Beck establishes the burdens of proof as between an ordinary consumer plaintiff and manufacturer. Thus, the rationale of that decision does not apply to an implied indemnity claim by a manufacturer against one of its raw material suppliers. The rationale of Beck is clear. Besides lessening the burdens of plaintiff's prima facie case, this allocation puts the burden of producing the relevant complex and technical evidence on the party who has the most access to and is the most familiar with such evidence. Id. at 886. Contrary to ARCO's assertion, the rationale of Beck does apply and the superior court correctly allocated the burden of proof upon ARCO as the bead manufacturer. The product in question in this case is ARCO's beads, not Western's Insulfoam. Western must prove that the beads are defective if it is to receive indemnity. Furthermore, in accordance with the rationale of Beck, ARCO is the party who has the most access to and is the most familiar with the relevant evidence of the quality of the beads since it manufactured them. ARCO contends that this case represents an anomaly. It cites the fact that Western's officers were active members of industry groups that conducted in-depth studies regarding polystyrene beads. [28] However, the Beck standard for allocating burdens of proof nonetheless applies in this case because, although Western may be fully knowledgeable about the combustion characteristics of expandable polystyrene beads, ARCO is no less knowledgeable. [29]