|
Abstract: In the United States, products liability design defect law in many states focuses on the existence of a reasonable alternative product design; in other words, whether a reasonable alternative product design could have reduced or eliminated foreseeable risks posed by the product. Yet surprisingly few common law authorities or state statutes have considered the term of product life over which a product’s risks and alternative designs should be evaluated. In this article, a torts treatise writer, a distinguished sustainability law student, and an award-winning product designer, argue that reasonable alternative design should be based on the foreseeable risks and benefits of the design over the product’s expected natural history, not merely during the product’s initial intended use. When the existence of a reasonable alternative design is evaluated through this lens, the test can weigh true risks and benefits of products as disparate as batteries, stents, and ships. Requiring product designs to prevent excess dangers posed by the product, to the extent foreseeable and reasonable, aligns product designers’ interests with the interests of society as a whole.
|