It is well known that manufacturers do not have to make the safest possible products. Rather, manufacturers are prohibited from making unreasonably dangerous products. And one of the biggest factors in determining whether or not a product is unreasonably dangerous is the existence of a feasible alternative design. Concerning for manufacturers though, the First Circuit just upheld a verdict against a manufacturer even though the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design.
In Osorio v. One World Tech., Inc., No. 10-1824 (1st Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), the plaintiff sued the maker of a table saw after he cut his arm while using the saw. The plaintiff argued that the saw should have contained a mechanism that stops and retracts the blade when the blade comes into contact with flesh. To bolster this argument, the plaintiff brought the inventor of the mechanism to testify on his behalf.
The manufacturer argued that the mechanism is not a feasible alternative design. The mechanism makes the saw larger and heavier, which would substantially change the use of the light, portable saw. Also, the mechanism has a tendency to retract when the blade gets wet, meaning that it cannot be used outside. Further, each time the blade retracts, the blade must be replaced. Additionally, the mechanism makes the $179 saw almost twice as expensive, adding $150 to the retail price. It is no surprise then that none of the major saw manufacturers use the mechanism.
Even after hearing all of this information, the jury found that the saw was defective and awarded the plaintiff $1.5 million. The manufacturer appealed, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design. On appeal, the First Circuit determined that a plaintiff does not have to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design to win a design defect claim. Rather, the existence of a feasible alternative design is just one factor in the "unreasonably dangerous" determination. As such, the court upheld the jury's verdict.
If you're shaking your head, you're not alone. While this case may not sit well with manufacturers, at least it provides a reminder that they should think twice before trying design defect cases in states where plaintiffs do not have to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design.
William F. Auther is a partner with an active trial practice in product liability and business litigation and Kelly M. McInroy is an associate in the Phoenix office of Bowman and Brooke LLP.