Harcourt v. Tesla, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 5th 838, 847-848, 850-851, 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d 58, 64, 67, ___ P.4th ___, ___ (2026) (applying Soule restriction that “ ‘the consumer expectations test is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety assumptions’ ”; identifying “two circumstances in which ordinary consumers form minimum safety assumptions about a product . . . . [T]his case . . . involve(s) [neither] an extreme malfunction or failure . . . [n]or does this case involve a safety device that failed to operate when it was supposed to, like [an] airbag . . . . [A] toddler climbing into a car in which the door was open and a key was left inside and then starting the car is not a common situation. As a consequence, it is not clear that ordinary consumers have any ‘commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions’ about the safety measures that a car should have to deal with this situation.’ ” (omitting citations to Soule)).
Recent Comments