California Legal Brief

The Rule of Harcourt v. Tesla, Inc. is that the consumer expectations test for product defect claims is inapplicable when the incident involves product misuse by a child in circumstances where ordinary consumers have no commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions about how the product should perform, under circumstances involving a two-and-a-half-year-old child accessing and operating a vehicle after the key fob was left inside and doors were left open.

Appeal from judgment after nonsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Defendant Appellant was Mallory Harcourt — the pregnant Tesla purchaser who was struck by her vehicle after her toddler started and operated it.

Plaintiff Respondent was Tesla, Inc. — the vehicle manufacturer that successfully moved for nonsuit.

The suit sounded in strict product liability. Harcourt dropped all other claims before trial and proceeded solely on the consumer expectations test theory for design defect.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that four days after purchasing a Tesla Model X, Harcourt left her key fob inside the vehicle with doors open, her two-and-a-half-year-old son climbed in and started the car by pressing the brake pedal, shifting into drive, and pressing the accelerator, causing the vehicle to strike Harcourt and pin her against a wall, resulting in fractures and other injuries.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Tesla's motion for nonsuit, ruling that Harcourt failed to establish that the consumer expectations test applies because ordinary consumers do not have commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions about how vehicles should perform when misused by toddlers in these unusual circumstances.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the consumer expectations test for strict product liability applies to a case involving a toddler's misuse of a Tesla Model X in circumstances outside the common experience of ordinary consumers.

The Appellate Court held that the consumer expectations test does not apply when the incident involves product misuse by a toddler in circumstances where ordinary consumers have no commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions about vehicle performance, particularly where the vehicle has unusual features and safety systems outside ordinary consumer knowledge.

The case is inapplicable when the product failure involves common safety devices in common circumstances, extreme product malfunctions (like cars exploding while idling), or situations within the everyday experience of ordinary consumers where minimum safety assumptions can reasonably be formed.

The case leaves open whether the consumer expectations test might apply to vehicle misuse by older children (counsel conceded it would not apply to teenagers), what specific safety features ordinary consumers might reasonably expect in vehicles, and whether the risk-benefit test could have established liability on these facts.