instruction. Cf. Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 986 F.2d 263, 267 (8th Cir.1993) (affirming sanctions based on the trial court’s finding that “both plaintiffs’ expert and plaintiffs’ attorney knew or should have known that the car was an important piece of evidence which should have been preserved in its entirety”). Plaintiffs further argue that Ford suffered no prejudice from the loss of the Tempo because plaintiffs alleged a design defect shared by all similarly designed Tempos. To be sure, the need for the actual defective product and, correspondingly, the prejudice caused by its loss, is significantly reduced in a case alleging a common design defect, as opposed to a particular manufacturing defect. See Beerman v. Toro Mfg. Corp., 1 Haw.App. 111, 115, 615 P.2d 749, 753 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d
holding that plaintiffs did not need to identify the specific defective lawn mower to sustain their claim of a design defect holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion holding that complaint alleging design defect likely to cause damage failed to state a claim holding that acts of improper maintenance were insufficient to defeat plaintiffs defective design claim holding the mda did not preempt plaintiffs state common law claims for defective design defective manufacture and failure to warn