California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Franck v. Polaris E-Z Go Div. of Textron, Inc., 157 Cal.App.3d 1107, 204 Cal.Rptr. 321 (Cal. App. 1984):
A manufacturer may be held liable for a defectively designed product "(1) if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) if the plaintiff proves that the product's design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to prove, ... that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design." (Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 435, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443.) Factors to be considered in the latter prong of the test include "the gravity of danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design." (Id., at p. 431, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.