Ponce

Ponce v. Raymond Handling Solutions CA2/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 9, 2014B246832California6,278 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

INTRODUCTION

After he fell from a forklift, plaintiff Gary Ponce filed the instant products liability action against the machine’s manufacturers, defendants Raymond Corporation and Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. (Raymond), alleging that the handlebar he grabbed for balance broke away from the forklift’s panel cover. Raymond successfully moved for summary judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c)1 on the grounds (1) plaintiff could not demonstrate a design defect in the forklift, and (2) defendants had a complete defense to the failure to warn cause of action because plaintiff was a sophisticated user. Plaintiff appealed and asks us to determine whether the competing expert declarations demonstrate a dispute of material fact. We conclude that Raymond failed to carry its burden in moving for summary judgment to demonstrate prima facie there was no defect and so the burden never shifted to plaintiff to oppose the motion. We conclude further, even had the burden shifted, that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the evidentiary objections to plaintiff’s experts’ declarations. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The accident In April…

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.