Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

danger-utility test

Read a random definition: malice in fact

A quick definition of danger-utility test:

Danger-Utility Test: A way to hold a manufacturer responsible for a product's safety. If it is shown that a reasonable person would think that the benefits of a product's design are not worth the risks, the manufacturer can be held liable. This test compares the benefits of the product's design to the feasibility of a safer alternative design. It is also called the risk-utility test or risk-benefit test.

A more thorough explanation:

The danger-utility test, also known as the risk-utility test, is a method used to determine product liability for manufacturers. It involves weighing the benefits of a product's design against the feasibility of an alternative, safer design, and determining if the dangers inherent in the original design outweigh the benefits.

  • A car manufacturer designs a car with a gas tank located in a vulnerable position, making it more likely to explode in a collision. The danger-utility test would consider if the benefits of this design, such as increased fuel efficiency, outweigh the risks of injury or death in the event of a collision.
  • A toy manufacturer creates a toy with small parts that could be a choking hazard for young children. The danger-utility test would consider if the benefits of the toy, such as entertainment value, outweigh the risks of harm to children.

These examples illustrate how the danger-utility test is used to determine if a product's design is unreasonably dangerous and if the manufacturer should be held liable for any resulting harm.

dangerous-tendency test | danism

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.