On July 7, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its decision in Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corporation. The central issue was whether a prima facie strict product liability claim requires a plaintiff to establish that a product was both defective and unreasonably dangerous as separate elements. The Court concluded that “a plaintiff asserting a strict product liability claim must first establish that the product was sold in a defective condition and, if so, that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.” Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. CV-25-0009-PR, 2026 Ariz. LEXIS 224 (July 7, 2026).

The case arose from a collision involving a 2019 Toyota 4Runner whose driver fell asleep, crossed the center line, and struck the plaintiffs’ vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged that the 4Runner was defectively designed because it was not equipped with a lane departure warning system. Toyota argued that the vehicle was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous and that the vehicle’s design did not cause the accident.

In ruling for Toyota, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plaintiff must prove three distinct elements: the product was defective, the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, and the defect proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. A product is defective when it is unsafe for normal handling or use, or is not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is sold. By contrast, a product is unreasonably dangerous when it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect or when the risks of the challenged design outweigh its benefits.

The Court clarified that a plaintiff must first establish that the product was defective. If no defect is established, the inquiry ends. If a defect is established, the consumer expectation test or risk/benefit analysis may then be used to determine whether the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.

For subrogation practitioners, Maywald reinforces the need to develop evidence of a specific defect at the outset of the investigation. It will not be sufficient to show only that a different design, additional safety device, or newer technology could have prevented the loss.

The decision may create an additional summary judgment obstacle in Arizona design defect cases that depend primarily on the availability of a safer alternative. However, claims involving identifiable manufacturing defects or products that unexpectedly fail during ordinary use may remain well suited to the consumer expectation test. Ultimately, Maywald does not eliminate strict product liability claims in Arizona, but it requires subrogation plaintiffs to maintain a clear analytical distinction between a product that could have been made safer and a product that was legally defective and unreasonably dangerous.

If you have any questions about subrogation recovery, please contact Paul Landis at 480.502.4664 Ext. 4225 or e-mail at plandis@blwmlawfirm.com, or Edwin Medina at 480.502.4664 Ext. 3224 emedina@blwmlawfirm.com.