Opinion ID: 2056520
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Risk-Utility Test

Text: Baxter also argues that the appellate court erred in finding that the jury's verdict could be supported under the risk-utility test. The appellate court held that the record supported a finding that a connector existed that would prevent foreseeable harm without hindering its function or significantly increasing its price. Hansen, 309 Ill.App.3d at 884, 243 Ill.Dec. 270, 723 N.E.2d 302. We disagree with Baxter on this point. As this court held in Kerns v. Engelke, 76 Ill.2d 154, 162-63, 28 Ill.Dec. 500, 390 N.E.2d 859 (1979), a plaintiff may demonstrate that a product is unreasonably dangerous because of a design defect by presenting evidence of an alternative design that would have prevented the injury and was feasible in terms of cost, practicality and technological possibility. The record in this case contains sufficient evidence to establish that the Luer-lock collar was designed to, and would have, prevented an unintentional disconnection at a cost of between three and five cents per unit. This record is sufficient to sustain a finding of unreasonable dangerousness under a risk-utility analysis. Baxter argues, however, that a risk-utility analysis is inappropriate in this case because the device in question is simple and because the risks are well-known to the medical community that uses the device. Baxter cites Scoby v. Vulcan-Hart Corp., 211 Ill.App.3d 106, 155 Ill.Dec. 536, 569 N.E.2d 1147 (1991), in support of its argument. In that case, the appellate court reviewed a grant of summary judgment by the trial court in favor of the defendant manufacturer of a deep-fat fryer used in a restaurant. Plaintiff was a cook who was burned when he slipped and lost his balance, causing his arm to be submersed in hot oil. Plaintiff claimed the injury could have been prevented if the fryer had been equipped either with a simmer cover or a tank cover. The manufacturer offered each protective cover as a separate product. The parties stipulated that the purpose of the simmer cover was to trap moisture in the product being cooked, and that the purpose of the tank cover was to prevent vermin from getting into the jelled cooking oil after it had cooled. Neither cover was developed or marketed as a safety device. In affirming the trial court's decision, the appellate court remarked: We do not deem that Lamkin or other cases applying aspects of the danger-utility test intend that all manufacturers of products described above should be subject to liability depending upon a trier of fact's balancing under that test, when suit is brought by one injured by such a product. Somewhere, a line must be drawn beyond which the danger-utility test cannot be applied. Considering not only the obvious nature of any danger here but, also, the simple nature of the mechanism involved, we conclude the circuit court properly applied only the consumer-user contemplation test. Scoby, 211 Ill.App.3d at 112, 155 Ill.Dec. 536, 569 N.E.2d 1147. That conclusion is not compelled by the facts in this case. Baxter's patent application stated that the Luer-lock was designed to overcome the problem of inadvertent disconnection of the friction-fit. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that Baxter, unlike the manufacturer in Scoby, developed and marketed its product as a safety device. As plaintiff's expert Neil Sheehan testified, the likelihood of disconnection of a friction-fit device is dependent on several variables, including the force applied to engage it, differences in molding and differences in sterilization procedures. Sheehan further opined that the friction-fit connectors became obsolete once the Luer-lock was invented. Even though the doctors assumed the friction-fit device was safe to use in central line applications, the reasonable conclusion is that the danger in the friction-fit was not obvious, nor was the mechanism simple. There can be no rational comparison between this device and a kettle of boiling oil. Thus, Scoby is inapposite. We believe the analysis of the appellate court was correct on this issue and we hold that the jury's decision against Baxter based on application of the risk-utility test was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Baxter also argues that if the risk-utility test is to be applied in the defective design analysis, then we should apply the standard defined by the new Restatement (Third) of Torts. That standard would allow a finding of unreasonably dangerous design only if reasonable health-care providers, knowing the foreseeable risks and therapeutic benefits, would not prescribe the device for any class of patients. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability § 6 (1998). Baxter did not argue this point in the trial court and it was asserted for the first time in Baxter's reply brief in the appellate court. The appellate court, however, made no reference to this argument in its opinion. Application of the Restatement (Third) of Torts standard would apparently require expert medical testimony to establish whether reasonable health-care providers, knowing the foreseeable risks and therapeutic benefits of the friction-fit device, would prescribe it for any class of patient. No such expert medical testimony was proffered by either party. We have already held that Baxter waived the argument that it was error to rely on the testimony of a mechanical engineer with no medical training or expertise and, thus, there is no evidentiary basis for the application of the Restatement (Third) of Torts standard. We decline, therefore, to address this issue. We do not foreclose the consideration of the Restatement (Third) of Torts standard in another case where it is raised at trial and is appropriately briefed and argued.