Law360, New York (March 15, 2016, 2:32 PM EDT) -- Industry custom and practice evidence can play a vital role in product liability cases. But there has been a split of authority among the California district courts of appeal on whether industry custom and practice evidence is admissible in a strict product liability case alleging the product is defective under the risk-benefit test. As recently described, some appellate courts have held that such evidence is always admissible, while others have held it is never admissible. Recently, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, in Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2016 No. B247672, added to this split by taking the middle ground that such evidence may be admissible depending on the context. Both defense and plaintiff counsel in a strict product liability case must be familiar with this split and the lessons and challenges the split presents....