Introduction
Design defect cases focus on flaws in a product’s design that render it unreasonably dangerous for consumers. Unlike manufacturing defects, which may occur sporadically during production, design defects affect all products of the same type. These cases are typically brought against the manufacturer responsible for the product’s design, rather than the seller or assembler. Understanding the complexities of design defect claims is crucial for pursuing compensation if you’ve been injured by a defective product.
What Must a Plaintiff Prove in a Design Defect Case?
To hold a manufacturer liable for a design defect, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the product posed a foreseeable risk of danger when used as intended. For instance, if an SUV has a tendency to roll over when swerving to avoid an obstacle, this could be considered a design defect. Similarly, if a power tool’s safety guard has openings that are too large, leading to severe injuries like an amputation, the manufacturer could be held liable for failing to address the foreseeable risk.
The Alternative Design Test
In some jurisdictions, it’s not enough to simply show that a product’s design is defective. Plaintiffs may also need to prove that a safer, feasible alternative design was available—this is often referred to as the “risk-utility” test.
1. Proving Feasibility of an Alternative Design
In these jurisdictions, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the manufacturer could have adopted a reasonable alternative design that was both practically and economically feasible. This involves showing that the alternative design wouldn’t compromise the product’s function and that it would not have been prohibitively expensive to implement.
For example, in the case of a power tool with a dangerous guard, an expert might need to show how the tool could have been designed differently to prevent injury. The expert would also need to prove that the cost of adopting the alternative design would have been less than the combined medical costs of all injuries caused by the original design. If the alternative design is found to be less expensive than the total cost of injuries, it would be considered economically feasible.
The Consumer Expectations Test
In other jurisdictions, the “consumer expectations test” is used instead of the alternative design test. Here, the focus is on whether the product poses a risk of danger that exceeds what an ordinary consumer would expect.
1. Defining the Ordinary Consumer
The consumer expectations test asks whether an ordinary consumer would anticipate the risk posed by the product. In these cases, much of the argument centers on defining who the “ordinary consumer” is and what their reasonable expectations are regarding the product’s safety.
Legal Theories in Design Defect Cases
When pursuing a design defect claim, plaintiffs typically rely on two main legal theories: negligence and strict liability.
1. Negligence
Under a negligence theory, the plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the design’s risks and failed to take appropriate action. The plaintiff’s case is strengthened if they can show that an alternative design could have been implemented without significantly reducing the manufacturer’s profits.
2. Strict Liability
In a strict liability claim, the plaintiff argues that the manufacturer placed a defective product on the market that posed an unreasonable risk of danger to consumers. Unlike negligence, strict liability does not require proof that the manufacturer was aware of the defect—only that the defect existed and caused harm.
How LawyerUp.ai Can Maximize Your Compensation in Design Defect Cases
Design defect claims can be complex and challenging, but with LawyerUp.ai, you gain access to powerful AI-driven tools designed to help you build the strongest case possible. Our platform doesn’t just assess your claim—it analyzes the critical details of your case, generating the best legal arguments tailored specifically to your situation. By using AI to sift through case law, precedents, and similar claims, we ensure that your case is positioned for success.
Once LawyerUp.ai has provided you with a detailed case analysis and compensation estimate, it matches you with the best attorneys in product liability litigation. These attorneys are not only skilled in the legal process but are focused on one goal: maximizing your financial recovery. With the right legal arguments in place and a top-tier lawyer by your side, you’ll be in the best position to secure the compensation you deserve for your injuries.
Conclusion
Design defects can have serious consequences for consumers, and holding manufacturers accountable is crucial for ensuring product safety. If you’ve been injured by a defective product, understanding your legal options is the first step toward securing the compensation you deserve. Let LawyerUp.ai help you navigate the legal process, so you can focus on recovery.