Legal Definitions - danger-utility test

The danger-utility test (also commonly referred to as the risk-utility test) is a legal standard primarily used in product liability lawsuits to determine if a product's design is unreasonably dangerous. When a plaintiff claims they were injured due to a flaw in a product's design, a court may apply this test to weigh the inherent dangers or risks associated with that design against the product's overall usefulness, desirability, and benefits to consumers and society.

The core idea is to assess whether the risks of the product's design outweigh its benefits. Factors considered often include:

• The likelihood and severity of harm posed by the product's design.
• The usefulness and desirability of the product to the public.
• The feasibility and cost of an alternative, safer design.
• The financial cost of making the product safer.
• The user's ability to avoid danger by exercising care.

If the risks are found to outweigh the benefits, or if a safer, economically feasible alternative design was available at the time of manufacture, the product's design may be deemed defective, and the manufacturer could be held liable for resulting injuries.

Examples:

• Example 1: Industrial Machine Safety Guard

  A manufacturer designs a new industrial cutting machine for factories. To maximize efficiency, the machine's blade guard is designed to be easily removable by operators, allowing for quicker material changes (utility). However, this design also increases the risk of severe lacerations or amputations if an operator accidentally activates the machine without the guard in place (danger). If an operator is injured, a court applying the danger-utility test would weigh the benefit of faster material changes against the heightened risk of serious injury. It would also consider whether a safer, non-removable or interlocked guard design was feasible and economically viable at the time of manufacture, which could have prevented the injury without unduly compromising the machine's core function.

• Example 2: Children's Furniture Design

  A company produces a line of children's dressers that are lightweight and designed with a narrow base to fit into smaller rooms (utility). However, this design makes the dressers prone to tipping over if a child climbs on them or pulls open multiple drawers (danger). If a child is injured when a dresser tips, a court would use the danger-utility test. It would evaluate whether the benefit of a compact, lightweight design outweighs the significant risk of serious injury or death from tip-overs, especially if the manufacturer could have included anti-tip anchoring kits or designed a wider, more stable base without significantly increasing cost or reducing utility.

• Example 3: All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Suspension System

  An ATV manufacturer designs a new model with a rigid suspension system, which provides a very "sporty" feel and precise handling at high speeds on smooth terrain (utility). However, this rigid design also makes the ATV more prone to rollovers when encountering uneven terrain or sharp turns at moderate speeds, especially for less experienced riders (danger). If a rider is injured in a rollover accident, a court would apply the danger-utility test. It would assess whether the enhanced performance benefits for experienced riders on specific terrain justify the increased risk of rollovers for a broader range of users and conditions, particularly if a more forgiving suspension system could have been implemented to reduce rollover risk without completely sacrificing the ATV's performance characteristics.