9th Cir.

Jauregui v. Paccar, Inc., et al.

June 5, 2026 ·2:23-cv-00729-JJT ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in a product liability case involving a fatal truck collision. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a design defect or to establish that the advanced driver assistance system was unreasonably dangerous.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / --:--

Background

Sandra Jauregui sued Paccar, Inc., Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC, and Daimler Truck North America LLC after her husband died in a collision between a Paccar tractor-trailer and a Daimler truck that had stalled on a highway. Jauregui alleged that design and manufacturing defects in the Daimler vehicle caused the stall and that a defective advanced driver assistance system in the Paccar vehicle failed to prevent the accident. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Jauregui appealed.

The court’s reasoning

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and the exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion. The court found that the plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing the Daimler vehicle was in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendant’s control. The court noted that the vehicle had been driven approximately one hundred twenty-one thousand miles over three years, distinguishing it from cases involving new products that fail unexpectedly. Regarding the expert testimony, the court held that the expert’s opinion that the Bendix advanced driver assistance system was faulty was unsupported because he did not review the algorithm’s code and relied solely on the system’s failure to activate. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish consumer expectations for the system, as the operator’s manual warned of inherent limitations and placed ultimate responsibility on the driver. Finally, the plaintiff failed to describe the system with enough specificity to perform a risk-benefit analysis or to show that the design departed from industry norms.

What it means going forward

This unpublished memorandum decision reinforces the requirement in product liability cases that plaintiffs must provide specific evidence of defects beyond the mere occurrence of a failure, particularly for complex systems like advanced driver assistance technology.

Play