17. This motion should be

A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.

A type of strict products liability claim is one based on a design defect. For strict liability to apply to a defective design, the plaintiff must prevail in a risk-utility balancing test by demonstrating that the risk and severity of her injuries were predictable. Typically, the plaintiff satisfied this burden by demonstrating that an alternative design existed which was economically feasible.

A is correct. The court would deny the manufacturer's motion for a directed verdict, because the jury could find that an unreasonably dangerous defect in the engine was a proximate cause of the collision. A threshold requirement of proving a design defect claim is that the plaintiff prevail on a risk-utility analysis, typically by showing the existence of an alternative design that is economically feasible.

Here, the facts indicate that the driver introduced evidence of a safer alternative engine which was of equal cost and would eliminate the stalling program without impairing any functions. Either a judge or a jury could find that the driver met her burden to show injury to herself as the result of a design flaw that was not technologically and economically burdensome for the manufacturer to correct. Therefore, the manufacturer would not be entitled to a directed verdict in their favor,

B is incorrect. Although the manufacturer's request for a directed verdict would be denied because a reasonable jury could find in favor the driver, the crashworthiness of the car is not in issue and irrelevant to the strength of the driver's claim. The driver's claim is based on an engine defect and the driver introduced evidence of a safer alternative design. While the driver experienced an injury as a result of a car crash, her claim is based around the failure of the engine causing the crash, not that the car was defective in terms of failing to protect her from crash-related injuries.

C is incorrect. The manufacturer would not be entitled to a directed verdict on the basis that the other motorist's failure to stop was a superseding cause of the collision and the resulting injury to the driver. Manufacturers are liable for injuries resulting from a product's flaw that are reasonably foreseeable. Here, the other motorist collided with the driver because of the driver's engine failing in traffic due to a defect, and a collision with other motorists would definitely be a foreseeable consequence of the engine defect. Therefore, the other motorist's negligence would not sever the manufacturer's liability to the driver.

D is incorrect. The manufacturer would not be granted a directed verdict on the basis that a person of normal sensitivity would not have suffered a heart attack under these circumstances. Generally, in tort law, defendants are required to take plaintiffs «as they find them.» Further, even though the driver's heart attack may have been unexpected, the potential for severe injury was a foreseeable result of a design defect causing the sports car to unexpectedly stall in traffic. Therefore, the manufacturer would be liable for all of the driver's crash-related injuries, including the heart attack.