On July 7, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion in a product liability case that defined the elements of a strict product liability claim. In Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corporation, the court held that a plaintiff who asserts a strict product liability claim must first independently establish that the product was sold in a defective condition. If the plaintiff does so, then the plaintiff must then also prove that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. The court further defined the consumer expectation test and the risk/benefit analysis and clarified that both tests inform the “unreasonably dangerous” analysis. This opinion clarified the requirements of a strict product liability claim and has reframed its analysis.
In this case, plaintiffs Shawn and Tanya Maywald alleged, among other claims, claims of strict liability for design defect against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Overtyme, Inc. (Toyota) after they collided with a 2019 Toyota 4Runner (4Runner). The driver of the 4Runner had fallen asleep, drifted across the center line, and collided with the plaintiffs’ car, causing Shawn Maywald major injuries. The plaintiffs alleged that the 4Runner “was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the vehicle lacked a lane departure warning (LDW) system.”
Ultimately, Toyota moved for summary judgment, arguing that the “4Runner was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and that the vehicle’s design did not cause the accident.” The plaintiffs filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment arguing comparative fault and the risk/benefit analysis with respect to the 4Runner. Although the superior court granted Toyota’s motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motions, the Court of Appeals vacated its grant of summary judgment. It concluded that the risk/benefit analysis applied and that the analysis was not predicated on first finding that the 4Runner was defective. It additionally opined that the risk/benefit analysis should “weigh the risks of excluding LDW against the benefits of including LDW.”
In assessing the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Arizona Supreme Court discussed the reaffirmance of the two-part test for strict product liability claims in Arizona jurisprudence and the importance of its retention, particularly how it prevents converting product liability law into absolute liability. It additionally discussed how the appellate courts have muddied the two-part framework, including the appellate court in this matter. Specifically, the Court of Appeals relied on case law that did not independently require proof that the product was defective and that instead bypassed the legal requirement that defectiveness and unreasonable danger must be separately established in a strict product liability claim.
The Supreme Court defined the elements of a strict product liability claim and the relationship among the elements. It reaffirmed that a “plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of strict product liability by showing that (1) the product was defective, (2) the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, and (3) the defect proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Thus, proving that a product is defective is insufficient to establish strict product liability. To establish strict product liability, the defective condition must also render the product unreasonably dangerous.
The Supreme Court additionally defined “defect” as distinct from “unreasonable danger.” It clarified that a “defect” or “defective condition” is when a product is “unsafe for normal handling and consumption.” An “unreasonably dangerous” product, on the other hand, is a product that is “more dangerous than a consumer would expect or whose risks outweigh the benefits.”
In discussing the consumer expectation test and risk/benefit analysis test, the Supreme Court clarified both. The consumer expectation test requires the factfinder to determine “whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonable manner.” On the other hand, the risk/benefit analysis test requires the factfinder “to consider several relevant factors and determine whether the benefits of a challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design.” The Supreme Court then reaffirmed that the consumer expectation test functions effectively in manufacturing defect cases but may have limited utility design defect cases. Thus, when faced with a design defect case that the consumer expectation test could not feasibly be applied to, courts should instead “employ the risk/benefit analysis test to determine whether the defect renders the product unreasonably dangerous.”
Using its defined analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that the 4Runner was not defective, such that plaintiff failed the first prong of the test and could not make out a prima facie case of strict products liability. The court concluded that, “[a]lthough LDW technology may enhance vehicle safety, it does not eliminate the driver’s fundamental responsibility to maintain control of the vehicle.” Despite the plaintiffs’ assertions, the lack of LDW “did not render the vehicle unsafe for its intended and ordinary use.” Thus, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Toyota.
The Maywald decision clarified the strict products liability analysis, providing courts with the accurate legal framework for strict products liability claims.
For additional information regarding this decision, please reach out to an author of this legal alert or a member of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Product Liability practice.