Opinion ID: 1099041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Risk-Utility Analysis

Text: In a risk-utility analysis, a product is unreasonably dangerous if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product. Thus, even if a plaintiff appreciates the danger of a product, he can still recover for any injury resulting from that danger provided that the utility of the product is outweighed by the danger that the product creates. Under the risk-utility test, either the judge or the jury can balance the utility and danger-in-fact, or risk, of the product. Steven G. Davison, The Uncertain Search for a Design Defect Standard, 30 Amer.Univ. L.R. 643, 654 (1981); See also John W. Wade, On the Nature of Strict Tort Liability for Products, 44 Miss.L.J. 825 (1973). The two most recent cases in Mississippi on products liability law speak to a risk-utility analysis. In Hall v. Mississippi Chemical Exp., Inc., 528 So.2d 796 (Miss. 1988), this Court appeared to move away from the consumer expectations analysis of products liability. Hall, like all of the products liability cases before it, followed State Stove in adhering to Section 402A as Mississippi's law for strict liability. However, this Court then stated: The proper focus in a strict liability case is upon the utility and safety of the product in view of its intended function rather than on the manufacturer's fault or lack thereof. Id. at 799. Prestage argues that this is clearly a step away from the consumer expectations analysis. He argues that whether an ordinary consumer expected or contemplated the dangerousness of a particular product has little or no relevance on whether that level of dangerousness is reasonable in view of the product's intended function. This Court again made reference to risk-utility in Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341 (Miss. 1985). In Whittley, as in Hall, this Court acknowledged 402A as the law for products liability in Mississippi. The Court then stated: In determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous a reasonable person must conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product. Id. at 1347. Again, Prestage argues that this is clearly a step away from the consumer expectations analysis. In holding that Mississippi adheres to a consumer expectations test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit discussed the language of Hall and Whittley. In Melton, 887 F.2d at 1241, the Fifth Circuit rejected the idea that Whittley (and presumably Hall, as well) changed products liability law in Mississippi from a consumer expectations analysis to that of risk-utility. Melton has suggested that Mississippi may employ a test for unreasonable dangerousness other than that based on consumer expectations. In support of this contention Melton cites Whittley v. City of Meridian [cite omitted], a strict liability case in which the Supreme Court of Mississippi made the following statement: In determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous a reasonable person must conclude that the danger-in-fact, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product. [cite omitted]. Such a risk-utility test for unreasonable dangerousness is distinct from the consumer expectations test discussed above, and does not necessarily bar recovery when a danger is open and obvious. [citations omitted]. We cannot say, however, that Mississippi has altered its doctrine of strict liability. Whittley quoted section 402A of the Restatement as the law of Mississippi [cite omitted]. The sentence to which Melton points was merely a description following that quote. It was unaccompanied by any discussion of unreasonable dangerousness, the consumer expectations test, or the risk-utility test. Furthermore, that section of the opinion discussed a defense based on an intervening cause; the court did not actually apply the risk-utility test. Thus, we cannot conclude from this single sentence that Mississippi has adopted a new test for unreasonable dangerousness. Accordingly, consumer expectations are still the basis of Mississippi's test, and there is still no strict liability for a patent danger. Id. at 1243. (Emphasis added). Melton has subsequently been followed by Toney, 975 F.2d at 162, and Batts, 978 F.2d at 1386. Around the country, the test generally employed to determine liability for products defects is the risk-utility test developed by Dean Wade. W. Kip Viscusi, Wading Through the Muddle of Risk-Utility Analysis, 39 Amer.L.R. 573, 574 (1990); See also Kim Larsen, Strict Products Liability and the Risk-Utility Test for Design Defect: An Economic Analysis, 84 Colum.L.R. 2045, 2046 (1984) (stating that in recent years, the risk-utility test has replaced the consumer expectations test in defective design cases). Risk-utility has become the trend in most federal and state jurisdictions. [2]