by adoption of a reasonable alternative design, ‘the and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe’” 3. Risk-Utility Burden Shifting Test/Consumer Expectation (Barker; 581) - P, inexperienced lift operator, hit and injured by lumber - P proves either consumer expectation OR product’s DESIGN proximately caused his injury (and D fails to prove that the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design) - easy for P to prove prima facie case - (581 note 2) Campbell - on the buss, fell, no railing - would lose on consumer expectation (there’s no railing, you don’t expect there to be one to grab onto) - met burden of proof on risk-utility (no railing DESIGN proximately caused her injury) - GM has to utility of not having the rail outweighs the risk, then the jury will decide - required for alternatives - the alternative design” test Honda: “reasonable - backed off the ramp, seatbelt was defective, drowned - alternative design has to be economically feasible, technologically feasible, and safer - P’s burden, did not meet - there was an alternative, they said it could be done, but not that it was economically feasible - would have to prove cost of alternative - wasn’t enough to get to the jury on this - P have hit the jury in CA (Barker) 1. Safer alternative 2. have prevented or reduced the risk 3. Technological and economically feasible - If no evidence of design: the product is not unreasonably dangerous The Formerly Special Case of - Hypo: the chloroquinine treatment - Restatement 402A - Comment K - unavoidably unsafe products - no design defect liability - liability for failing to warn
by ‘the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe’” 3. Risk-Utility Burden Shifting Test/Consumer Expectation (Barker; 581) - P, inexperienced lift operator, hit and injured by lumber - P proves either consumer expectation OR product’s DESIGN proximately caused his injury (and D fails to prove that the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design) - easy for P to prove prima facie case - Campbell (581 note 2) - on the buss, fell, no railing - would lose on consumer expectation (there’s no railing, you don’t expect there to be one to grab onto) - met burden of proof on risk-utility (no railing DESIGN proximately caused her injury) - GM has to utility of not having the rail outweighs the risk, then the jury will decide - required for alternatives - Honda: the “reasonable alternative design” test - backed off the ramp, seatbelt was defective, drowned - alternative design has to be economically feasible, technologically feasible, and safer - P’s burden, did not meet - there was an alternative, they said it could be done, but not that it was economically feasible - would have to prove cost of alternative - wasn’t enough to get to the jury on this - P have hit the jury in CA (Barker) 1. Safer alternative 2. have prevented or reduced the risk 3. Technological and economically feasible - If no evidence of design: the product is not unreasonably dangerous The Formerly Special Case of - Hypo: the chloroquinine treatment - Restatement 402A - Comment K - unavoidably unsafe products - no design defect liability - liability for failing to warn