Page 133 - FDCC_InsightsSpecialIssue23

Products Liability Law
The District Court agreed. In a 30-page opinion, the Court found that “[c]ourts applying the LPLA have found expert design testimony insufficient when the proffered expert fails to identify and describe a specific alternative design, and explain how that design would apply to the product at issue.”2 Accordingly, the Court concluded, “there was no valid alternative design presented[,]” notwithstanding the existence of reports submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs’ experts. Holding that Plaintiff was unable to satisfy his burden of proof under the LPLA, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Crown and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Of course, the law regarding what, exactly, a plaintiff must prove to establish a prima facie design defect claim (and survive summary judgment) varies by jurisdiction, and each state has its own product liability statutes and/or case law on the issue. Under Louisiana law, for example, the LPLA has a particularly stringent statutory requirement for such claims, providing:
A product is unreasonably dangerous in design if, at the time the product left its manufacturer’s control:
(1) There existed an alternative
design for the product that was capable of preventing the claimant’s damage; and
(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. An adequate warning about a product shall be considered in evaluating the likelihood of damage when the manufacturer has used reasonable care to provide the adequate warning to users and handlers of the product.
La. R.S. 9:2800.56. Other states with similarly stringent design defect statutes include Alabama and Texas.
In Alabama, for instance, the Courts have interpreted AL ST § 6-5-521 to require both that “the plaintiff’s injuries would have been eliminated or in some way reduced by use of the alternative design” and that
2 Dawson Vallee v. Crown Equipment Corp. of Ohio, et al., No. CV 20-1571, 2022 WL 179532, at p. 12 (E.D.La. Jan. 20, 2022).
124
FDCC ANNUAL FIVES 2023