Wimberly

Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 574·56 Cal. App. 4th 618·65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532·97 Daily Journal DAR 9219·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5730
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1997D021840California6,755 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

When the fork assembly on Shawn Wimberly’s mountain bike broke, he was thrown to the ground and grievously injured. In this strict product liability action, Derby Cycle Corporation (Derby), producer and distributor of the fork assembly, appeals a judgment and an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) following a jury verdict against it. Derby contends the trial court erred in refusing to apply Proposition 51 to require the jury to apportion “fault” among it, the product’s manufacturer and others. Such a comparison ostensibly would have absolved Derby from liability for Wimberly’s noneconomic damages because the manufacturer defectively welded the fork assembly. Wimberly also appeals, claiming the court abused its discretion in denying him costs incurred to prove facts after Derby denied his requests for admissions (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033).

We conclude Proposition 51 is inapplicable; a strictly liable defendant may not reduce or eliminate its responsibility to plaintiff for damages caused by a defective product by shifting blame to others in the product’s chain of distribution. We also conclude Wimberly is entitled to recover costs of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.