These briefs were written for a hypothetical design defect case. Bowbeer and Cavanaugh argue for, and Stewart argues against, the adoption of the Restatement (Third)'s reasonable alternative design standard and the rejection of the Restatement (Second)'s consumer expectations test in the hypothetical State of Hutchins. The authors discuss the relative merits of the two tests, as well as the status to be accorded to Restatement standards in general. To do so Bowbeer, Cavanaugh, and Stewart rely upon precedent from other jurisdictions, one hypothetical Hutchins case, and various policy arguments advanced in the deliberations about adopting the new Restatement. In addition to discussing these matters in the abstract, the briefs offer a concrete and specific illustration of how arguments for and against the application of the reasonable alternative design standard should proceed in practice. The case is now before the Hutchins Court of Appeals on Defendant's interlocutory appeal (permitted under the State of Hutchins Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) from the district court's denial of Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.

Included in

Torts Commons