The Subrogation Strategist

Product defect cases can be some of the most challenging losses for subrogation practitioners to prosecute. There are logistical concerns such as whether enough of the subject product survived the loss to reach a theory of liability. There are practical concerns such as identifying a viable manufacturer or distributor to pursue. Then of course, there are legal concerns. Proving the legal elements necessary to support a product defect case in court is complex, and it only becomes more so when states like Arizona add layers to the equation.

In Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corp. LLC, No. CV-25-0009-PR, 2026 Ariz. Lexis 224 (Ariz. 2026), the Arizona Supreme Court addressed a product defect case against Toyota for failing to include a lane departure warning (“LDW”) system in its vehicle. In granting Toyota’s summary judgment motion, the Court laid out the multi-layered burden of proof that a plaintiff must meet to prove the elements of its strict liability, product defect case. Because the plaintiffs in the instant case did not meet this burden, they could not support their case.

This case arises from a car accident that occurred in December of 2019. The plaintiffs, Shawn and Tanya Maywald, were traveling southbound on State Route 77 when the driver of a 2019 Toyota 4Runner traveling northbound drifted into their lane and struck them. Shawn Maywald sustained significant injuries from the accident. It was later determined that the northbound driver fell asleep while driving just before the accident occurred.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Toyota for Shawn Maywald’s injuries and Tanya Maywald’s loss of consortium. They alleged both strict product liability and negligence. The superior court granted Toyota’s motion for summary judgment based on the defense that the plaintiffs did not prove that the 4Runner was defective or unreasonably dangerous, specifically arguing that the plaintiffs’ argument was flawed in that the risk/benefit analysis focused on an alternative design rather than the actual design. Plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court vacated the lower court’s summary judgment order. The Arizona Supreme Court then granted Toyota’s petition to review.

The Arizona Supreme Court held that with a strict product liability claim, a plaintiff must first establish that the product was sold in a defective condition. Once this is established, the plaintiff must then prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous. If an ordinary customer has expectations about the safety of the product, the “unreasonably dangerous” burden is met through the consumer expectations test. If this test does not apply, then the analysis focuses on the risk/benefit analysis of the product as designed, rather than on an alternative design. Of course, the plaintiff must still then prove that the defect proximately caused the claimed injuries.

Here, the Court held that the plaintiffs did not meet the initial burden of proving that the 4Runner was sold in a defective condition. Specifically, it held that the absence of an LDW system did not render the car defective in that there was no expectation that the vehicle would prevent human error. Thus, not having an LDW system did not make it unsafe for intended and ordinary use.

Because the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden for the strict liability claim, the Court held that they also failed to do so for their negligent design claim. Further, without an underlying tort claim, there was no loss of consortium claim either. Without meeting the first level of analysis for a defect, the Court did not have to analyze the second layer of whether the product was unreasonably dangerous. However, it noted that when doing so and focusing on the risk/benefit analysis, lower courts should focus on the danger in the actual design, not in an alternative design.

This case is important because it highlights the significant burdens plaintiffs must meet when prosecuting strict liability cases. The benefits of strict liability are palpable, including the ability to avoid having to address certain defenses. Conversely, courts like those in Arizona are setting the bar higher for plaintiffs to reap those benefits.

For subrogation practitioners, it is crucial to know the strict liability standard for the state where your case is being litigated. Knowing the burdens you may have to meet one day in litigation will inform the questions you ask of your expert during the initial investigation. Having a clear understanding of what ultimately needs to be proven amongst the subrogation lawyer, the experts, and the client, will go a long way in assuring everyone involved has proper expectations.