the alleged--defective -part of the product)- had not-been defective, you should-try-to-separate the-damages caused by (describe the alleged-defective-part-of the product), - determine what - part - of (claimants) [loss] [injury] [or]-[damage] resulted-from-(describe -the-alleg-ed defective -par-t-of the product), and--the-actions of others-and award (claimant)-money only for those damages caused-by-(describe-the alleged defective part-of- the product). However, if you cannot -separate some or all of the damages, you must award (claim*801ant)-any damages-that you cannot separate as -if-they were all caused by (defendant).
NOTES ON USE FOR 403.16
Í-. - The term "enhanced injur)''" -is not used - in this -Instruction - Although-cases use-that -term, the -committee-believes-that "enhance" has a connotation-not appropriate - fer - describing - traumatic - injuries. More-appropriate-terms might be "aggravated/' "increased- injury ¿--or- "separate injury." For that reason, the committee has used-quotation marks for the term "enhanced-injury" in the title to-this instr-uc-1⁄8©3⁄8 - Although many of these claims-involve motor vehicles, there is no reason the-same principle would not apply to any "enhanced injury" claim regardless of-the product involved.-
& - Use this- instruction for "crashwor-thiness^ - claims - instead - of-.instruction 405⁄81-5. - But instruction 403.15 should be used-together-with this instruction-when there-is also a defect claim--that does-not -involve-a - claim-of- an "enhanced injury." In cases in which there is-a- claim that- one defect caused the accident but-a different defect caused an "enhanced injury," it-may be-necessary to identify the-separate-de-fectsv
3⁄8 - It - is- -not-necessary--to.repeat--the definition of defectiveness-i-n-paragraph-2 of-this-i-nstruction-if it has -already-been given-as part of earlier instructions.
4 - T-his instruction retains-the risk/benefit test for-product-defect,-which previously appeared in-PL 5. As noted in Note 3 to instruction 403.7, pending-further- development-in- the law, the committee takes no position on -whether-the risk/benefit test- is a -standard of product defect or an affirmative defense. - See- 403.-7,.403.18. - The risk/benefit test is - provided - in - both - instructions to illustrate how-it-is.used-in either-case. If-a court determines that the risk/benefit test is a test for-product defect, the -committee takes- no position on whether -both - the consumer expectations and-risk/benefit tests should--be given alternatively- or-together. '
403.17 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM
If the greater weight of the evidence does not support [one or more of] (claimant's) claim[s], your verdict should be for (defendant) [on [that] [those] claim(s) ].
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence does support one or more of] (claimant's) claim[s], then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant) [on [that] [those] claim(s) ].
[However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports (claimant's) claim against one or [both] [more] of the defendants], then you should decide and write on the verdict form the percentage of the total fault of [both] [all] defendants that was caused by each of them.
Note on Use for 403.17
Use the first paragraph in all cases. If there is an affirmative defense to the claim, do not use either of the bracketed paragraphs; instead turn to instruction 403.18. If there is no affirmative defense, use the first or second bracketed paragraph depending on whether there is one defendant or more than one.
403.18 DEFENSE ISSUES
If, however, the greater