Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, Inc.
2001 N.H. LEXIS 187, 147 N.H. 150, 784 A.2d 1178 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action for defective design, a plaintiff is not required to prove the existence of a reasonable alternative design as an essential element of their claim. Proof of an alternative design is one of several non-exclusive factors a jury may consider under the risk-utility balancing test to determine if a product is unreasonably dangerous.
Facts:
- David S. Vautour used a leg press machine manufactured by Body Masters Sports Industries, Inc.
- The machine is equipped with two sets of safety stops: upper stops to rest the weight and lower stops to prevent the sled from falling onto the user.
- A warning label on the machine instructed users to engage the upper stops when performing calf raise exercises.
- Vautour was aware of the warning label but did not have the upper stops engaged while moving his feet into position to do calf raises.
- As a result, the weighted sled fell rapidly toward his chest, causing injury to his feet.
- Vautour contended that the fixed location of the safety stops constituted a design defect that exposed users to an unreasonable risk of harm.
Procedural Posture:
- David S. Vautour and Susan Vautour sued Body Masters Sports Industries, Inc. in the New Hampshire Superior Court (trial court) under theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' case-in-chief at trial, they withdrew their breach of warranty claim.
- The defendant, Body Masters, moved for a directed verdict on the remaining strict liability and negligence claims.
- The Superior Court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, finding the plaintiffs' expert testimony was insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of a directed verdict on their strict liability claim to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
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 claim for defective design, must a plaintiff prove that the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by a reasonable alternative design as a required element of the claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Duggan, J.
No. In a defective design case, a plaintiff is not required to prove a reasonable alternative design as a prerequisite for the claim to succeed. New Hampshire applies a risk-utility balancing test, in which the availability of an alternative design is merely one of several factors for the jury to consider, not an essential element. The court explicitly declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 2(b), which would have made proof of a reasonable alternative design a required element. The court reasoned that making it a mandatory element places too much emphasis on one factor and could create an insurmountable burden on plaintiffs, especially in cases involving complex products. The court found that the plaintiffs' expert testimony, which stated the machine was dangerous and proposed a feasible, safer alternative design, was sufficient evidence for a jury to weigh under the risk-utility test, making the trial court's directed verdict an error.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New Hampshire's adherence to a flexible, factor-based risk-utility test for design defect claims, consciously rejecting the more rigid, defendant-friendly standard proposed by the Restatement (Third) of Torts. By refusing to make proof of a reasonable alternative design a mandatory element, the court maintains a more accessible path for plaintiffs to bring their cases to a jury. This ruling preserves the jury's central role in balancing multiple factors to determine if a product is unreasonably dangerous, rather than allowing a case to be dismissed early solely because the plaintiff cannot produce a detailed, technically vetted alternative design. It signals that New Hampshire law prioritizes a holistic evaluation of product safety over a single, potentially cost-prohibitive evidentiary hurdle.
