In what circumstances will a court deny a motion to dismiss state of the art evidence in a product liability case?

[227 Cal.App.3d 1041] As to cases tried on a failure to warn theory, the court observed: "[W]e are again confronted with a general evidentiary ruling which is to be applied to the entire spectrum of products and uses which may conceivably arise among these hundreds of cases.... However, this order is not exclusionary across the board--the ultimate decision is necessarily left to the trial court in each case." (Vermeulen v. Superior Court, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d at p. 1203, 251 Cal.Rptr. 805.) For this reason the Vermeulen court concluded it "should deny the petition unless plaintiffs can demonstrate that such evidence is not admissible under any circumstance." (Ibid.) Following some discussion of the issue, the court did, in fact, deny the petition. (204 Cal.App.3d at p. 1206, 251 Cal.Rptr. 805.) Thus, the most that can be said of Vermeulen on this issue is that it rejected the plaintiffs' contention that state of the art evidence is inadmissible under any and all circumstances in products liability cases tried on a failure to warn theory.