What is the “risk-utility test” in defective products law?

In California, the “risk-utility test” is a key factor in the determination of liability for defective products law. This test is used to consider the trade-off between the cost of creating a safer product and the cost of potential injuries that could be caused by the product. When a consumer has a claim against a manufacturer or seller of a defective product, they must show that the product was “unreasonably dangerous”. In order to make this determination, the risk-utility test must be applied. This test looks at the benefits and risks of the product in the context of the marketplace when it was sold. The court will consider the product’s intended use, cost, and the benefits of the product when it was manufactured and sold. In addition, the utility of the product must be weighed against the potential risks of the product. In order for a consumer to successfully show that a product was unreasonably dangerous, they must prove that the risks of the product outweighed its benefits. This involves offering evidence of a safer, more cost-effective alternative design. If the consumer is unable to prove this, the manufacturer or seller of the product is not liable for any harm caused by the product.

Related FAQs

What type of proof do I need to establish a defect in a product?
Are there any defenses available against a defective products claim?
What type of buyer can bring a defective products claim?
How do I choose a product liability attorney?
Is there the ability to sue a manufacturer for a defective product?
What is a “misplaced reliance” defect in a defective products case?
What are some examples of defective products law in action?
How do I identify a product defect?
How does a court determine liability for a defective product?
What is the legal definition of a “defective product”?

What is the “risk-utility test” in defective products law?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts