Opinion ID: 8436
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: There existed an alternative design for the

Text: product that was capable of preventing the claimant's damage; and 5 (2) The likelihood that the product's design would cause the claimant's damage and the gravity of that damage outweighed the burden on the manufacturer of adopting such alternative design and the adverse effect, if any, of such alternative design on the utility of the product. . . . La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2800.56. In other words, a plaintiff suing in Louisiana must demonstrate that the risk avoided by using the alternative design (magnitude of damage discounted by the likelihood of its occurrence) would have exceeded the burden of switching to the alternative design (added construction costs and loss of product utility). Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 181 (5th Cir. 1990). Even assuming that the jury could have credited Dr. Brown's opinion that the sleeve on the cruise control cable was responsible for Mrs. Lawrence's accident, the evidence as to an alternative design is insufficient to establish GM's liability under Louisiana law. The only suggestion of an alternative design was Dr. Brown's recommendation of a longer sleeve.1 There is scant evidence, however, showing that the likelihood that [the sleeve used] would cause [Mrs. Lawrence's] damage and the gravity of that damage outweighed the burden on [GM] of adopting [a longer sleeve] and the adverse effect, if any, of [a longer sleeve] on the utility of the product. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2800.56. Though Dr. Brown concluded that a longer sleeve could have prevented Mrs. Lawrence's accident, he did not elaborate on the actual likelihood of avoiding 1 Dr. Brown testified at trial: Well, if the little plastic sleeve had been a little longer, then there wouldn't have been room for the sheath of the cable to catch on it and hang up the way it did. 6 the probable damage through an alternative design. Moreover, Dr. Brown did not address the burdens or adverse utility effects of a longer sleeve, nor did he counter Maiers' explanation that a longer sleeve would not fit in an undamaged engine. Since there was no other evidence of a feasible alternative design apart from Dr. Brown's longer-sleeve testimony, the judgment holding GM liable for a design defect cannot be sustained. See Morgan v. Gaylord Container Corp., 30 F.3d 586, 590-92 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.56 and holding that opinion by plaintiff's expert that alternative design would have been `obvious[ly]' inexpensive and easily implemented was insufficient to withstand manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in absence of other evidence on alternative design's feasibility and utility effects); Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 183.2