There is no doubt the subject matter here required expert testimony. The idea that the jury could base a verdict simply on rejection of expert testimony here is also inconsistent with the rule that consumer expectations cannot be the basis of liability in a case involving complex technical matters. A jury in such a case must rely on expert testimony and cannot substitute its own experience. A consumer expectations theory was not available to the plaintiff here. “Barker ... made clear that when the ultimate issue of design defect calls for a careful assessment of feasibility, practicality, risk and benefit, the case should not be resolved simply on the basis of ordinary consumer expectations.” Soule v. Gen. Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298, 305 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The California Supreme Court has held that
holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control holding that the consumer expectations test was not appropriate for a claim that a car was defective because the wheel assembly detached in accident holding that search warrant was constitutionally defective because it did not require notice holding that even though plaintiffs claim was barred by the cgia because it sounded in tort attorney fees were not appropriate where it was a contract claim that was pleaded and thus a contract claim that was dismissed holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim