Opinion ID: 2631869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Manufacturing defect instruction

Text: Krause and Home Depot further argue that the district court erred in instructing the jury on a manufacturing defect, as Little presented no expert testimony regarding the existence of a manufacturing defect. We have previously held, however, that expert testimony is not always necessary to establish the existence of a manufacturing defect. [23] Rather, evidence of an unexpected, dangerous malfunction gives rise to an inference of a manufacturing defect. [24] In such a situation, direct proof of the malfunction's cause is unnecessary; the circumstantial evidence of the malfunction can prove a manufacturing defect. [25] Here, Little testified that the ladder collapsed as he stood on it. Assuming the truth of this testimony, the ladder clearly did not perform in a reasonable manner in light of its nature and intended function; i.e., the ladder was defective. The average juror is quite familiar with a ladder's functions, and does not require expert testimony to know that a ladder should not collapse while a person stands on it. The jury could properly infer from Little's testimony that this unexpected and dangerous malfunction derived from a manufacturing defect. This instruction was proper and the district court did not abuse its discretion in this regard.