The following excerpt is from Diviero v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 114 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1997):
Appellants' claim that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a burden of proof higher than is required by Arizona law for strict products liability claims is meritless. The district court only required appellants to prove, sufficient to allow a trier of fact to reasonably infer it more probable than not, that the tire was defective and unreasonably dangerous. This is the correct standard of proof. See Dietz v. Waller, 141 Ariz. 107, 685 P.2d 744, 747 (1984); Restatement (Second) of Torts, 402A (1965).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.