Comment f: Applies to any manufacturer of such a product, to any wholesale or retail dealer
or distributor, and to the operator of a restaurant. Does not apply to occasional seller who is
engages in activity as not part of business activity.
Comment i: the article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be
contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it.
Types of Product Defects:
any imperfection, shortcoming, or abnormality in a product that departs
from its design specifications and prevents the product from safely performing its intended
Test for Determining: product in question typically is compared to the manufacturer's
own standards or specifications to determine if there is a difference that makes the
product less safe.
a defect in a product as a result of the design, present in all models of the same
make. Generally exist when safety hazards in the design could have reasonably been eliminated.
Test for Determining: a design defect can be found if a reasonable, safer, cost-efficient
design was technologically feasible when the product was sold that would not unduly
impair the overall utility of the product.
Consumer Expectations Test: asks whether the product is more dangerous that
the ordinary consumer would expect.
No expert needed because defect is within general knowledge/ability of
juror to understand.
Π can use experts to show what average users of specialized product
Risk-Utility Test: asks whether there is a safer, feasible, cost-effective alternate
design that does not impair the usefulness of the product.
Weight trade-offs, feasible design.
Focus on products, not conduct of ∆, assumes ∆ knows of alleged
Asks whether given knowledge product should be redesigned.
No expert needed.
Π may sue all links in distribution.
Can introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures (
lead to rejecting this, as discourages remedial measures