Maywald v. Toyota

Summary

The court held that strict product liability requires separate proof that a product was defective, that the defect made it unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect proximately caused the injury. Because the absence of lane-departure warning technology did not make the vehicle unsafe for its intended and ordinary use, the Maywalds failed to establish a defect, defeating their strict-liability, negligent-design, and loss-of-consortium claims. The court also clarified that risk/benefit analysis focuses on the challenged design itself rather than an alternative design incorporating additional safety features.