In Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 208 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (No. B239761), plaintiff was injured when the back of her driver’s seat collapsed after her vehicle had been hit from behind, causing her to slide backward and hit her head against the back seat of her vehicle, rendering her quadriplegic.  Plaintiff sought to prove her strict liability claim using the consumer expectations design defect test rather than the risk/benefit design defect test.  The consumer expectations test assesses whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary user of the product would expect when used in reasonably foreseeable manner; the risk/benefit test determines whether the benefits of the product’s design outweigh the risks of danger inherent in the design.  The trial court allowed her to do so over defendant’s objection that the complexity of the accident required risk/benefit analysis.  The trial court also excluded the defendant’s evidence on the risk benefit aspects of its products design.  The jury found for plaintiff.  On appeal, defendant argued that both the vehicle seat and the nature of the multi-car collision in which plaintiff was injured were too complex to permit plaintiff to pursue consumer expectation test in lieu of the risk/benefit test.  The court of appeal ruled both that the nature of how a vehicle’s seat should perform in an accident and the nature of the rear-end collision in this case were not so complex as to bar plaintiff from pursuing liability on the consumer expectations test.  Consequently, the court affirmed judgment for plaintiff.