prudent manufacturer test in Tennessee

2015In BIC, this Court discussed the applicability of the two tests with respeet to “complex products” as follows: For example, ordinary consumers would have a basis for expectations about the safety of a can opener or coffee pot, but, perhaps, not about the safety of a fuel-injection engine or an air bag. [[Image here]] While the statute does not limit applicability of the tests, the prudent manufacturer test will often be the only appropriate means for establishing the unreasonable dangerousness of a complex product about which an ordinary consumer has no reasonable expectation. 925 S.W.2d at 53

2015Holman v. BIC Corp., this Court determined that the Act’s definition of “unreasonably dangerous” provided two alternative tests to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous: the consumer expectation test and the prudent manufacturer test. 925 S.W.2d 527, 533 (Tenn.1996).

2015The opinion in BIC clearly states that either the consumer expectation test or the prudent manufacturer test, or both, may be applied in all cases where the product is alleged to be unreasonably dangerous. 60 S.W.3d 800, 804 (Tenn. 2001).

2015The opinion in BIC clearly states that either the consumer expectation test or 'the prudent manufacturer test, or both, may be applied in all cases where the product is alleged to be unreasonably dangerous. 60 S.W.3d 800, 804 (Tenn.2001).

2012Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 282 (Tenn. 2005) Liability is imposed under the prudent manufacturer test “‘in circumstances in which a reasonably prudent manufacturer with knowledge of a product’s dangerousness would not place the product in the stream of commerce.’” Id. (quoting Ray ex rel.

2012Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 282 (Tenn. 2005) Liability is imposed under the prudent manufacturer test “‘in circumstances in which a reasonably prudent manufacturer with knowledge of a product’s dangerousness would not place the product in the stream of commerce.’” Id. (quoting Ray ex rel.

1996Comment (i) to that section states that before a product is deemed unreasonably dangerous it must be “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A, comment i; Vincer v. Esther Williams All-Aluminum, 69 Wis.2d 326 , 230 N.W.2d 794, 798-99 (1975). 5 Under this test, a product is not unreasonably dangerous if the ordinary consumer would appreciate the condition of the product and the risk of injury- By contrast, the prud

1996Comment (i) to that section states that before a product is deemed unreasonably dangerous it must be “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A, comment i; Vincer v. Esther Williams All-Aluminum, 69 Wis.2d 326 , 230 N.W.2d 794, 798-99 (1975). 5 Under this test, a product is not unreasonably dangerous if the ordinary consumer would appreciate the condition of the product and the risk of injury- By contrast, the prud