Wins

GMSR’s clients manufactured commercial-grade tables for a large hotel.  A hotel guest was injured when a table top unexpectedly detached.  He sued GMSR’s clients, claimed design defects, and asked the trial court to instruct the jury regarding the “risk-benefit” defect test, as well as the rarely-used “consumer expectations” test.  The trial court accepted the risk-benefit theory but granted partial nonsuit regarding the “consumer expectations” theory.  The court also prohibited the plaintiff from presenting two tables allegedly collected from the hotel, finding an inadequate post-accident chain of custody.

Although the defect theories were hotly disputed, the first question on the jury verdict form skirted defects entirely.  It asked about causation—whether the “table’s design” was “a substantial factor causing harm.”  The jury answered no, followed the court’s instructions to stop deliberating, and made no design-defect findings.

Plaintiff appealed, argued that the partial nonsuit was erroneous, and claimed the error was reversible per se, requiring a retrial.  The Court of Appeal affirmed.  Agreeing with GMSR’s arguments, the court held that partial nonsuit rulings are subject to standard prejudicial error rules on appeal.  Given the causation verdict, plaintiff did not and could not establish prejudice from the partial nonsuit on the separate element of design defect.  The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding the tables, noting numerous gaps in the chain of custody.

Click here to read the Court of Appeal’s opinion:  Reddy v. Unifactor Corporation et al. (Mar. 23, 2026, B330750) 2026 WL 798833 [Second District, Division One].