In Nance v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., No. 13-cv-8011 (D. Ariz. Sept. 22, 2014), the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s proof was insufficient as she did not retain a qualified expert to testify in support of her claim that defendant’s seat belt was defective and caused the decedent to be ejected from a car during a rollover accident. The court denied the motion, noting that Arizona permits proof of a strict liability or negligence under one of two tests, the “Consumer Expectation Test” or the “Risk/Benefit Analysis Test.”  To satisfy the former test, a plaintiff must show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when it is used in a reasonable, intended manner.  Arizona permits the Consumer Expectation Test to be applied to claims targeting products with which consumers have a great deal of familiarity.  It held that seatbelts are a familiar product whose basic function is well known and understood by the general population.  Consequently, the Consumer Expectation Test is appropriate in this case.  Further, because of ordinary consumers’ familiarity with seatbelt design and function, a jury could reasonably resolve the case without the benefit of an expert testifying on behalf of plaintiff, so that the absence of an expert was not fatal to plaintiff’s claim.