Kordek v. Becton
921 F.Supp. 2d 422, 2013 WL 420332, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14332 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, a proposed alternative product design is not a 'reasonable alternative' if, despite preventing the plaintiff's specific injury, it compromises the product's overall utility or introduces other dangers of equal or greater magnitude.
Facts:
- Diane Kordek, a surgical technician, was preparing an operating room for a Cesarean section on September 11, 2008.
- She handled a disposable scalpel manufactured by Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), which had a fully removable, flexible vinyl shield over the blade.
- The shield was difficult to remove, requiring Kordek to wrap her fingers around it and pull several times with significant force.
- When the shield finally came loose, Kordek severely lacerated her hand and arm, resulting in a permanent disability.
- At the time of the incident, BD also manufactured and sold a 'protected disposable scalpel' with a retractable shield designed for one-handed operation to improve safety.
- BD continued to sell the conventional scalpel because some surgeons found the retractable version to be bulkier, which could obscure their line of sight and negatively affect the 'feel' and precision required during surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Diane Kordek filed a lawsuit against Defendant Becton, Dickinson and Company in Pennsylvania state court, alleging strict products liability and negligence.
- The Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Brian Benda.
- The Defendant also filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss both the strict liability and negligence claims before trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed alternative product design qualify as a 'reasonable alternative design' for a product liability claim if the alternative, while preventing the plaintiff's specific injury, introduces other significant risks that compromise the product's primary function and overall safety?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, District Judge.
No. A proposed alternative design does not qualify as a reasonable alternative if it is not safer overall. To prevail on a design defect claim under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a reasonable alternative design that would have reduced the foreseeable risk of harm. The court's determination of reasonableness must be comprehensive, considering the overall safety of the product and not just the specific injury sustained by the plaintiff. Here, the proposed alternative—the retractable shield scalpel—was not a reasonable alternative because it introduced new hazards. Evidence from medical professionals and regulatory bodies like OSHA indicated that the retractable scalpel's bulkiness could compromise a surgeon's precision and line of sight, potentially endangering the patient. An alternative design is not reasonable if it would have prevented the plaintiff's harm but also 'introduced into the product other dangers of equal or greater magnitude.' Because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the retractable scalpel was a safer alternative overall, she could not prove that the conventional scalpel's design was defective.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the comprehensive risk-utility analysis required for design defect claims under the Restatement (Third) of Torts. It clarifies that a plaintiff cannot establish a reasonable alternative design simply by pointing to an existing product that would have prevented their specific injury. The ruling raises the bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to prove that the proposed alternative is superior in overall safety and utility, without creating new, significant risks. This precedent is particularly significant for manufacturers of tools used by skilled professionals, as it protects their ability to offer various designs catering to different user preferences regarding 'feel' and functionality, even if one design incorporates more explicit safety features than another.
Unlock the full brief for Kordek v. Becton