Published in The Legal Intelligencer
In product liability cases, the presence—or absence—of a safety feature can be critical in determining whether a product is defective. In his recent article in The Legal Intelligencer, Anapol Weiss shareholder Larry Coben explores the “risk-utility analysis,” a legal framework used to evaluate whether a product design is unreasonably dangerous. This analysis balances the potential risks of harm against the utility of a particular design to determine whether a manufacturer failed to provide a reasonably safe product.
Manufacturers have a duty to design and market products that minimize foreseeable risks of harm. However, many companies offer critical safety features as optional add-ons rather than standard equipment. Courts have consistently rejected the argument that simply offering a safety feature as an option absolves a manufacturer of liability. Cases such as Ali v. Trans Lines, Volvo Group North America and Bilotta v. Kelley illustrate that manufacturers cannot shift responsibility to consumers by making safety an extra-cost feature.
To establish a product liability claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate that a feasible alternative design existed and that it could have reduced or avoided the harm. Courts apply the "hindsight test," assessing whether a reasonable manufacturer, knowing the risks, would have sold the product in its current state. If a manufacturer itself offers safer versions of the same product, it serves as strong evidence that the less-equipped version is defective.
Coben’s article reinforces the role of product liability law in holding manufacturers accountable for unsafe designs. By advocating for plaintiffs in these cases, attorneys help push industries toward prioritizing consumer safety rather than leaving it as an optional expense.
Full article on The Legal Intelligencer: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2025/03/07/using-the-risk-utility-analysis-to-decide-if-the-absence-of-a-safety-feature-produced-a-defective-product/
