Law360 (November 9, 2010, 1:02 PM EST) -- In the past three months, courts around the country have been grappling with whether to apply the risk-utility test or the consumer expectation test to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous in design defect cases.
In August, the Supreme Court of South Carolina and the California Court of Appeals reached opposite conclusions, the former applying the risk-utility test in a rollover case involving an allegedly defective seatbelt sleeve and the latter applying the consumer expectations test to overturn a defense verdict in an asbestos case alleging defective design. See Branham v. Ford Motor Co., — S.E.2d — (S.C. Aug. 16,...
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!