Legal Definitions - risk-utility test

The risk-utility test is a legal standard used in product liability cases to determine if a product's design is unreasonably dangerous. It evaluates whether the benefits of the product's original design outweigh its inherent dangers, considering the feasibility of a safer alternative design. If the dangers are found to outweigh the benefits, the manufacturer may be held liable.

The risk-utility test is a legal standard used to determine if a product's design is unreasonably dangerous, potentially making the manufacturer responsible for injuries caused by that design. It requires a court or jury to weigh the benefits of a product's particular design against the dangers it poses, especially when considering whether a safer, practical alternative design was available but not used.

Essentially, the test asks: Would a reasonable person conclude that the dangers inherent in the product's original design outweigh its benefits, particularly when a feasible and safer alternative design could have been implemented?

• Example 1: A Child's Play Structure

  Imagine a new design for a backyard swing set where the support poles are made of a lightweight, hollow metal that, while cheaper to produce, is prone to bending and collapsing under the weight of multiple children. A safer alternative design would involve using thicker, more robust metal or solid wood poles, which would increase manufacturing costs but significantly reduce the risk of collapse.

  In this scenario, a court applying the risk-utility test would weigh the utility of the original design (lower cost, easier assembly) against the severe risk of injury from a collapse. If it's determined that the dangers of the flimsy poles far outweigh the minor benefits of cost savings, especially when a practical and safer alternative (sturdier materials) was available, the manufacturer could be found liable for injuries resulting from a collapse.

• Example 2: Industrial Machinery

  Consider a new model of industrial wood chipper designed for landscaping companies. This model features an open feed chute that allows operators to quickly load branches, but it lacks an automatic shut-off mechanism if a hand or arm enters the chute too far. An alternative design could incorporate a safety sensor that detects proximity to the blades and immediately cuts power, or a narrower, angled chute that prevents an operator's limb from reaching the dangerous parts.

  Here, the risk-utility test would balance the utility of the open chute (faster loading) against the extremely high risk of severe injury or amputation. If a safer design (like a sensor or redesigned chute) was technologically and economically feasible, and a reasonable person would conclude that the danger of the exposed blades outweighs the benefit of slightly faster loading, the manufacturer might be held responsible for injuries.

• Example 3: Automotive Component

  Suppose a car manufacturer uses a specific type of plastic in a critical engine component that is known to become brittle and crack prematurely when exposed to common engine temperatures over time. This cracking can lead to sudden engine failure while driving. A more durable, heat-resistant plastic or a metal alloy could have been used, but at a slightly higher material cost.

  Applying the risk-utility test, a court would assess the utility of the original plastic component (lower manufacturing cost) against the significant risk of engine failure and potential accidents. If a safer, more robust material was a practical and affordable alternative, and a reasonable person would agree that the dangers of sudden engine failure far outweigh the cost-saving benefits of the original material, the manufacturer could be found liable for damages caused by the component's failure.