BOSTICK v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., PART II

BOSTICK v

BOSTICK v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Filed 1/29/07

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

HAROLD L. BOSTICK,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B171567

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SC066205)

GOLD'S GYM, INC.,

Cross-complainant and Respondent,

FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Cross-defendant and Appellant.

B173455

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SC066205)

STORY CONTINUED FROM PART Iâ€¦â€¦â€¦

c. Wimberly

In Wimberly, the plaintiff suffered injuries when the fork assembly on his bicycle broke. He brought a strict products liability action against the designer, manufacturer, and seller of the fork assembly, among others. After settling with a number of the defendants before trial, the plaintiff proceeded at trial against the producer-distributor defendant only. (Wimberly, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623-624.) After the jury returned a verdict against it, the defendant appealed contending the trial court erred in refusing to apply Proposition 51 to require the jury to apportion â€