For most product liability cases involving design-defect claims, New Jersey’s Model Civil Jury Charges offer two options for instructing the jury on how to determine whether the design of the subject product was “defective.” Those two tests are known as the “risk-utility” test and the “reasonable safer design” test. See N.J. Model Civ. Jury Charge 5.40D-1 at 2-3 (Approved 4/99; Revised 5/10).
This article will briefly set forth the differences between those two tests and the contexts in which either is the appropriate option, but ultimately explains that there is not much of a practical difference between the two. Regardless of which test is selected in a design-defect case, the jury still must be instructed on the various risk-utility factors and evaluate whether the design of the product strikes an appropriate balance between the product’s risks and its usefulness.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
