Opinion ID: 2743961
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Risk-Utility

Text: Even assuming that the proposed alternative would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of Mrs. Casey’s death, Renfroe did not conduct a 16 Case: 13-11119 Document: 00512808055 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/20/2014 No. 13-11119 risk-utility analysis. To prove safer alternative design, a “plaintiff must show the safety benefits from [the] proposed design are foreseeably greater than the resulting costs, including any diminished usefulness or diminished safety.” Hodges, 474 F.3d at 196 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Hodges, this court recognized the necessity of a riskutility analysis beyond the mere admission of a patent into evidence: Syson also conducted the requisite risk-utility analysis. He testified: a driver faces a significant risk if a door opens during an accident; engineers do not, and cannot, design for one particular accident; and the Eberhard latch would not impair the door’s usefulness. In other words, part of a latch’s utility is its ability to keep a door shut during a vehicle crash and using the Eberhard latch would not diminish the door’s utility. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Syson’s testimony satisfied the requisite risk-utility test. Id. at 197 (first emphasis added). Renfroe did not evaluate whether the new airbag would inject any new risks into the vehicle or diminish its usefulness or safety in any way. In fact, Renfroe admitted that he had not personally done a risk-utility analysis to determine whether this airbag would even work or fit in the 2010 Toyota Highlander. This court has, in similar circumstances, reversed a design defect verdict when an expert did not conduct a risk-utility analysis of a proposed alternative design. See Smith v. Louisville Ladder Co., 237 F.3d 515, 519 (5th Cir. 2001) (reversing a finding of design defect because plaintiff’s expert “conceded that he made no risk-benefit analysis” and thus did “not establish that his proposed design would not have substantially impaired the [product’s] utility”). Renfroe instead relies on the patent itself for a risk-utility analysis. The patent application contains, and Renfroe cites to, additional benefits related to storing the airbag and preventing “blocking” of the airbag portions, 17 Case: 13-11119 Document: 00512808055 Page: 18 Date Filed: 10/20/2014 No. 13-11119 but these benefits are just one side of a risk-utility analysis. The patent application does not speak to whether the inclusion of the proposed alternative design in the 2010 Highlander would have diminished usefulness or safety, and there was no evidence that any risks were outweighed by the utility of the alternative design. Accordingly, neither Renfroe nor the patent application conducted a risk-utility analysis.