Tillman

MEMORANDUM **

Freightliner LLC (Freightliner) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. Freightliner also challenges the amount of non-economic damages awarded by the jury.

1. Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Freightliner was liable pursuant to California’s consumer expectations test. See Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1668 , 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 638 (2005), cert. den., 547 U.S. 1018 , 126 S.Ct. 1567 , 164 L.Ed.2d 297 (2006). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury pursuant to the consumer expectations test. See McCabe v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1124 , 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 (2002).

2. Sufficient evidence also supported the jury’s verdict that Freightliner negligently designed the truck. See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 941 P.2d 1203, 1214 (1997). Freightliner’s adherence to safety *869 standards and industry custom does not preclude liability. See Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Cal.App.4th 525, 545 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 147 (2006), as modified, judgment vacated on other grounds,…