limited purpose for which custom-and-practice evidence could be considered. Third, although it was mentioned in closing argument, industry custom and practice Toyota’s was not defense the vast majority of closing argument counsel’s principal focus. Rather, on both sides focused on causation, suggesting that a proper limiting instruction was unlikely to result in a different outcome for plaintiffs. Because the instructional error was harmless, I concur with of today’s affirmance the Court of judgment. Appeal’s DATO, J. I CONCUR: LIU, J.
limited purpose for which custom-and-practice evidence could be considered. Third, although it was mentioned in Toyota’s closing argument, industry custom and practice was not defense counsel’s principal focus. Rather, the vast majority of closing argument on both sides focused on causation, suggesting that a proper limiting instruction was unlikely to result in a different outcome for plaintiffs. Because the instructional error was harmless, I concur with today’s affirmance of the Court of Appeal’s judgment. DATO, J. I CONCUR: LIU, J.