{"id":73,"date":"2026-04-01T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=73"},"modified":"2026-04-01T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T12:00:00","slug":"harcourt-v-tesla-consumer-expectations-test-complex-vehicle-safety-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=73","title":{"rendered":"Harcourt v. Tesla \u2014 Consumer Expectations Test Cannot Be Used to Prove Defect in Complex Vehicle Safety System"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Harcourt v. Tesla, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
6th District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-01<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
H052308<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Strict products liability; consumer expectations test; design defect; Soule v. General Motors; nonsuit<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Four days after purchasing a new Tesla Model X, Mallory Harcourt parked the SUV in her driveway and walked toward the garage with her two-and-a-half-year-old son to change his diaper, leaving the key fob inside the car and the doors open. Unbeknownst to her, the toddler climbed into the driver’s seat. According to vehicle data logs, he pressed the brake pedal, moved the gear selector stalk into drive, and pressed the accelerator. The Model X rolled forward, struck the eight-and-a-half-months-pregnant Harcourt, and pinned her against the garage wall, fracturing her leg and pelvis.<\/p>\n

The Model X had several unusual features: it had no traditional start button, the gear shifter was a small stalk near the steering wheel, and the car would automatically power on whenever the key fob was inside. The vehicle also had safety features Harcourt did not know about, including an optional PIN-to-Drive feature that requires a four-digit code before driving.<\/p>\n

Harcourt sued Tesla for strict product liability based on design defect. At trial, she abandoned the risk-benefit test (which weighs the dangers of a design against its benefits) and proceeded only under the consumer expectations test, which asks whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. After Harcourt rested, Tesla moved for nonsuit. The trial court granted the motion, and Harcourt appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the consumer expectations test does not apply to the particular Model X safety system at issue because ordinary consumers do not have minimum safety expectations about how a complex automotive system should prevent a small child from accidentally driving the car.<\/p>\n

Under Soule v. General Motors Corp., the consumer expectations test is reserved for two narrow circumstances: where ordinary consumers have everyday experience with a common safety device (such as a handrail on a public bus), or where a product fails so spectacularly that the defect is apparent to common reason (such as a car exploding while idling). Neither applied here. The Model X’s combination of keyless start, electronic gear selector, optional PIN-to-Drive, obstacle-aware acceleration, and brake override system represents a complex network of features that lies outside the everyday experience of ordinary consumers.<\/p>\n

The court also faulted Harcourt for failing to identify any specific objective feature of the Model X that performed below ordinary safety expectations. Her broad assertion that the car should not allow a toddler to start, shift, and accelerate it within seconds did not point to any particular component or design choice that ordinary consumers would understand. By electing not to use the risk-benefit test, Harcourt effectively closed off the analytical path that California courts use for complex product designs.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n