Opinion ID: 1290968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of a Designer

Text: Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to Pust, we find ample evidence that Union Supply was a designer of this conveyor system. There was evidence that Union Supply added the mechanical and structural design, together with the necessary engineering specifications, without which the conveyor could not be built. Other evidence showed that Union Supply redesigned and modified each of the sections of the conveyor. One expert testified that while Holly Sugar did the performance designhow much sugar beet pulp the conveyor would carry and how much power was neededUnion Supply did the mechanical design necessary for the conveyor to be operational. There was evidence that Union Supply had subcontractors do the component work and that Union Supply only charged Holly Sugar one price for the system. Based on this evidence, a jury could find Union Supply to be a designer of the conveyor. We observe that in certain situations more than one party could be the designer of a product. Where two or more parties collaborate and where each substantially contributes to the final design, each is a designer of the final product. Design appears to involve: that part of the manufacturing process requiring decisions as to general structure, shape, size, material, and methods or processes of construction. Comment, Foreseeability in Product Design and Duty to Warn CasesDistinctions and Misconceptions, 1968 Wis.L.Rev. 228, at 231. It is conceivable that a jury could determine that both Holly Sugar and Union Supply were designers of the conveyor. [3] If Union Supply is found by the trier of fact to be a designer and if the other elements of a § 402A design defect case are established, then Union Supply will be strictly liable for Pust's injuries.