Opinion ID: 753903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State of the Art Instruction

Text: 5 In a products liability action, a defendant shall not be liable if the defendant proves that the following applies: 6 The defect in the product is alleged to result from inadequate design or fabrication, and if the plans or designs for the product or the methods and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting, testing and labeling the product conformed with the state of the art at the time the product was first sold by the defendant. 7 Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-683(1). State of the art means the technical, mechanical and scientific knowledge of manufacturing, designing, testing, or labeling the same or similar products which was in existence and reasonably feasible for use at the time of manufacture. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-681(6) (1992). 8 We conclude that Crown presented sufficient evidence to justify the giving of the state of the art instruction. Crown introduced evidence of experimentation and research prior to manufacture of the lift truck. See Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 153 Ariz. 389, 737 P.2d 365, 370 (Ariz.Ct.App.1985), vacated in part, 153 Ariz. 400, 737 P.2d 376 (Ariz.1987) (thoroughness of experimentation and research prior to manufacture appropriate evidence for state of the art defense). Crown presented testimony describing a design process that continued over three years that preceded the initial production of the RC Series lift truck and included both the retention of a design consulting firm and comprehensive testing of a majority of stand up trucks then manufactured. Stammen testified that Crown built prototypes which were tested internally and in the field. Crown received positive feedback on operator security, the side stance, and the placement and operation of the multifunction control. Crown also presented evidence that it monitored the design of the truck after production and new technologies. Moreover, a study of the multifunction control's performance and function was conducted prior to deciding whether the design should be incorporated into other Crown lift trucks. 9 Crown also introduced testimony that Marine's two proposed alternative designs were infeasible. See Gosewisch, 737 P.2d at 370 (infeasibility of testing and design alternatives appropriate evidence). First, Crown presented evidence that a dual-step activation process on the multifunction control was infeasible because it created the potential hazard that an operator would fail to depress the dual-step activation button and would be disabled from plugging the truck. Moreover, there was evidence that the proposed design alternative would result in operator fatigue from holding his or her right hand in the same position to ensure access to the dual-step activation process while the lift truck is in motion. 10 Crown also presented evidence on the lack of feasibility of Marine's proposed alternative design of adding bumpers to the lift truck. Crown introduced evidence that the bumpers would restrict the function of the truck by increasing the turn radius and preventing utilization of the truck in certain warehouse environments. Moreover, Crown presented evidence that it had considered and rejected the idea of adding bumpers in 1985 because it would give the operators a false sense of security, would increase the force on impact, and could be used for dangerous activities such as resting a leg on the bumper or giving rides to other workers. 11 Finally, Marine's argument that the evidence presented is insufficient because defendant did not first prove that the proposed alternatives were technologically infeasible is unpersuasive. This argument contradicts the court's reasoning in Gosewisch. There, the court implied that a design could be state of the art if the available technology proposed by the plaintiff is in existence but not feasible in application to a specific product. Gosewisch, 737 P.2d at 370. The defendant is not required to show that the technology for the proposed design is in itself infeasible. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving the instruction.