Wednesday, October 29, 2008
In a great teaching case (pdf), the Illinois Supreme Court discussed, at length, the development of defective design standards. In particular, the court examined the use of the risk-utility test versus the consumer-expectation test. The court declined to adopt Section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, but found "its formulation of the risk-utility test to be instructive." (Slip Op. at 30). The court then adopted a formulation of the risk-utility test that incorporates consumer-expectation as a factor consistent with comment (f) to the Restatement.
Thanks to Mark Weber (DePaul) for bringing this case to our attention.