Design defect theories for products liability are a bit more complicated. Generally, a product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, and the failure to adopt the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. The primary difference between a manufacturing defect and design defect is that the design defect exists, even if the product is manufactured according to the particular specifications.
Under a theory related to design defects, called the “consumer-expectation theory,” a product is defectively designed if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. This would be more simply described as a theory of “not as safe” as expected for a product, rather than a theory based purely upon the dangerousness of its use.
Another important theory in the design defect arena is known as the “risk-utility test,” whereby a weighing process may occur in which the risks associated with the product are measured against its benefits or “utility.”
The considerations that weigh into this process include:
- The usefulness and desirability of the product
- The availability of other and safer products to meet the same need
- The likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness
- The obviousness of the danger
- The common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger
- The “avoid ability” of injury by using due care
- The ability to eliminate the danger without seriously impairing the usefulness of the product
- The expense of making it without any danger
If you have a situation concerning design defects in manufacturers products, please contact Corless Associates at 877-517-5595 .
