O'Brien v. Muskin Corp.
94 N.J. 169, 463 A.2d 298 (1983) (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action based on a design defect, a product may be found defective if its risks outweigh its utility, even if the plaintiff does not prove that a technologically feasible and safer alternative design existed at the time of manufacture.
Facts:
- In 1971, Arthur Henry purchased and assembled an above-ground swimming pool manufactured by Muskin Corporation.
- The pool was twenty by twenty-four feet with four-foot walls and was filled with water to a depth of approximately three and one-half feet.
- The pool featured a slippery, embossed vinyl liner and had a decal on the outer wall that warned 'DO NOT DIVE'.
- On May 17, 1974, Gary O’Brien, then 23, arrived uninvited at the Henry home and dove into the pool.
- When O'Brien's outstretched hands hit the slippery vinyl liner on the pool bottom, they slid apart, causing him to strike his head and sustain serious personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary O’Brien sued Muskin Corporation in a New Jersey trial court, alleging his injuries were caused by a defectively designed pool.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted a motion to remove the design defect claim from the jury's consideration.
- The case was submitted to the jury solely on the issue of an inadequate warning.
- The jury allocated fault as 85% to O’Brien and 15% to Muskin, which, under New Jersey's comparative negligence law at the time, barred O'Brien from any recovery.
- O'Brien, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment for Muskin, the appellee, and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in taking the design defect issue from the jury.
- Muskin Corporation successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a product be found to have a defective design under a risk-utility analysis even if no safer alternative design is technologically feasible?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
Yes, a product can be found to have a defective design under a risk-utility analysis even if no safer alternative design is technologically feasible. The availability of a safer alternative is just one of several factors in the risk-utility analysis, not an essential prerequisite for a plaintiff's case. Some products may be so dangerous and of such little utility that a manufacturer should bear the cost of the injuries they cause, regardless of whether a safer design was possible. In this case, the jury should have been permitted to consider whether the risks of the pool's dimensions and slippery liner so outweighed its utility as to constitute a design defect, even without proof of an existing alternative.
Concurring - Clifford, J.
Yes, but the court should be cautious in its reasoning. I agree with the result to remand the case but write separately to express my continued rejection of the 'consumer expectations' test, which the majority briefly mentions. More importantly, I disagree with the dissenting opinion's characterization of this decision as an expansion of absolute liability. The majority correctly holds that state-of-the-art evidence is a relevant factor for the jury to consider in its risk-utility analysis, which is a standard application of strict liability principles, not a radical departure from them.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Schreiber, J.
No, a product cannot be found defective under a design defect theory if there is no manufacturing flaw, no safer alternative design, and the warning is adequate. The majority's holding improperly transforms strict liability into absolute liability by allowing a jury to find a product 'defective' simply by concluding its risks outweigh its utility. This kind of broad policy determination—deciding whether an entire class of products is too dangerous to exist without liability—is a function for the court, not a jury. I concur only in the result because there was some evidence of a feasible design alternative (deeper embossing on the vinyl) that could have been presented to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of design defect liability by clarifying that the risk-utility analysis is not limited to comparing the challenged design with a feasible, safer alternative. It establishes that a jury may find a product's design defective if the product's overall danger outweighs its social utility, effectively allowing a jury to render a policy judgment on an entire product category. This moves the focus from a purely technical question of alternative designs to a broader social value question, potentially holding manufacturers liable for marketing inherently dangerous products even if they are made as safely as possible.
