Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.
694 A.2d 1319, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 158, 241 Conn. 199 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability action for a design defect, a plaintiff is not required to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design as a prerequisite for recovery. For complex product designs where an ordinary consumer may not be able to form expectations of safety, the defectiveness is determined by a modified consumer expectation test that incorporates risk-utility balancing factors.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were shipyard workers employed as 'grinders' at the General Dynamics Corporation Electric Boat facility in Groton from the mid-1960s until 1987.
- During their employment, plaintiffs used various pneumatic hand tools, including chipping and grinding tools, that were manufactured and sold by defendants Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, Stanley Works, and Dresser Industries, Inc.
- The tools allegedly exposed the plaintiffs to excessive vibration, which they claimed constituted a design defect.
- Plaintiffs suffer from permanent vascular and neurological impairment of their hands, diagnosed as hand arm vibration syndrome, which is caused by exposure to vibration.
- As a result of their condition, plaintiffs have been unable to continue their employment as grinders and their performance of other activities has been restricted.
- The plaintiffs' employer, Electric Boat, periodically removed certain safety features from the tools, such as wheel guards and throttle speed governors, and used larger attachments than the tools were designed for.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a products liability action against the defendants in a Connecticut trial court.
- After a six-week trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs on their design defect claim, awarding them compensatory damages.
- The jury found for the defendants on the failure to warn and punitive damages claims.
- The trial court rendered judgment upon the jury verdicts.
- The defendants appealed and the plaintiffs cross-appealed from the judgment to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court transferred the appeal and cross appeal to itself for consideration.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a strict products liability action for a design defect, must a plaintiff prove the existence of a feasible alternative design in order to establish a prima facie case?
Opinions:
Majority - Katz, J.
No. A plaintiff in a strict products liability action is not required to prove a feasible alternative design to establish a prima facie case of a design defect. Connecticut continues to adhere to the consumer expectation test, but modifies it for complex products by incorporating risk-utility balancing factors. The court reasoned that requiring proof of a feasible alternative design, as proposed by the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts, would impose an undue burden on plaintiffs and is inconsistent with the majority of jurisdictions. For most products, the jury can determine if the product is unreasonably dangerous based on whether it is dangerous beyond the contemplation of the ordinary consumer. However, for complex product designs where consumers lack clear safety expectations, the jury should engage in a risk-utility analysis, weighing factors like the product's usefulness, the severity of the danger, and the feasibility and cost of a safer design. The court further held that under the statutory alteration/modification defense, the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving the product reached them without substantial change, although the defendant has the burden of producing evidence that an alteration was the sole proximate cause of the harm. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly instructed the jury on this burden of proof.
Concurring - Berdon, J.
No. Justice Berdon agreed with the majority's conclusion that a plaintiff is not required to prove the existence of a feasible alternative design. He wrote separately to express concern over the court's adoption of a risk-utility test for 'complex product designs,' arguing it was dicta as this case did not involve such a product. He feared this new test sounds 'dangerously close' to the reasonable alternative design requirement that the court properly rejected. He suggested that if such a test is to be used, it should include a presumption that a product's danger outweighs its utility if it fails in a way an ordinary user would not expect, thereby protecting the principles of strict liability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Connecticut's rejection of the more defense-friendly 'reasonable alternative design' requirement being pushed by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. By adopting a 'modified consumer expectation test,' the court created a flexible, hybrid standard that preserves the traditional consumer-focused inquiry for simple products while providing a more structured, risk-utility framework for complex ones. The ruling also clarifies the evidentiary burdens for the statutory alteration defense, establishing a burden-shifting framework that guides how parties must litigate cases involving post-sale modifications. This case provides a significant plaintiff-friendly precedent in design defect litigation, maintaining a lower evidentiary bar than in many other jurisdictions.
