What is the difference between a failure-to-warn claim and a cause of action for design defect based on consumer expectations?

The majority opinion recognizes at several points that a cause of action for design defect based on a failure to meet consumer expectations is independent of and analytically distinct from a failure-to-warn claim. (Maj. opn., at pp. 662, 66364.) It likewise appears to acknowledge that a defense verdict on one claim does not preclude a plaintiff's verdict on another theory. (Maj. opn., at p. 667, fn. 17.) But California law makes clear that a "consumer's reasonable expectations are not confined to those arising from information disseminated by the manufacturer or distributor of the product." ( Hufft v. Horowitz (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 8, 18, fn. 8, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 377.) Rather, they are informed by a host of other factors that include custom and social practice. This is particularly true with regard to a topic as universal as human interaction with pets. (See generally Bradshaw, The Animals Among Us: How Pets Make Us Human (2017).)

[264 Cal.Rptr.3d 677]