Opinion ID: 735718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The inference instruction

Text: 14 Meenach argues that the district court erred in denying proposed instruction # 3, which read in part, A defect may be inferred where the evidence shows an accident occurs which in common experience would not normally occur without a defect in a product. The district court rejected this instruction because Kentucky law provides for a rebuttable presumption that a product is not defective if its design and manufacture conformed to the state of the art at the time. Ky.Rev.Stat. § 411.310(2). Meenach does not address the district court's reliance on this Kentucky law. Instead, he argues that the instruction was required under Embs v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 528 S.W.2d 703 (Ky.1975), which noted that [t]here are some accidents ... as to which there is common experience that they do not ordinarily occur without a defect; and this permits the inference of a defect. Id. at 706. The facts here were a far cry from those which prompted the Embs court's observation. Embs contains no law on how a jury should be instructed. We find no error in the district court's refusal to lift inapplicable language from an inapplicable case. 3