Garrett

Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

Bad Law
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 179·214 Cal. App. 4th 173·2013 WL 820395
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 2013No. B234368California6,342 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Croskey, J.

*178 Opinion

Todd Garrett appeals a summary judgment in favor of Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (Howmedica) and Stryker Corporation (Stryker) in a products liability action involving an implanted prosthetic device. 1 He contends defendants failed to satisfy their burden to show that the prosthesis was not defective, the exclusion of portions of his expert’s declaration was error and his expert’s declaration creates triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment.

We hold that (1) the doctrine of strict products liability based on a design defect is inapplicable to implanted medical devices available only through the services of a physician and cannot provide a basis for the defendants’ liability, and (2) the exclusion of portions of plaintiffs expert’s declaration was error. In so holding, we reject defendants’ argument that the exclusion of evidence was proper under the principles recently articulated by the California Supreme Court in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 288 P.3d 1237 ] (Sargon). We conclude further that the expert’s declaration creates triable issues of fact precluding summary…

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.