100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 37 - 39 out of 51 pages.
proposed by theRestatement (Second) of Torts § 402A regarding strict liability. That section requires a court, in a design defect case, to weigh “the utility of risk inherent in the design against the magnitude of the risk.” Plaintiff must show that it was technologically feasible, at the time the defective product was made, of manufacturing an alternative product which incorporated the safety or non-defective features, that the materials to make such an alternative were available, demonstrate the cost of production of such a device, andthe chances of consumer acceptance of the alternative model.NotePart of the loss is the inability to show reasonable alternative design Parish v. JumpKing, Inc. 2006 pg. 538Rule of Law37
In Iowa, to survive summary judgment in a product design defect and failure to provide adequate warnings action, a plaintif must show (1) that the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced through an alternative design and the provision of reasonable warnings and (2) evidenceof an efective alternative product design and lack of ample warnings.FactsWhile attempting to do a back somersault James Parish (plaintiff) landed on his head and became paralyzed as a result. Parish brought suit against JumpKing, (defendant), on theories of defective design and negligence in failing to warn purchasers of the dangers in using the trampoline. IssueIn Iowa, to survive summary judgment in a product design defect and failure to provide adequate warnings action, must a plaintiff show (1) that the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced through an alternative design and the provision of reasonable warnings and (2) evidence of an effective alternative product design and lack of ample warnings?Holding and Reasoning (Larson, J.)Yes. In Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002), the court specifically adoptedsections 1 and 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability.Section 2 notes that a product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A defect in design is present when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided through use of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or distributor. There is an exception to the alternative design requirement. The Restatement recognizes that “the designs of some products are so manifestly unreasonable, in that they have low social utility and high degree of danger, that liability should attach evenabsent proof of a reasonable alternative design.” The Restatement notes that a product is “defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or