consumer expectation test in Connecticut

2016See, e.g., Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884 (Alaska 1979); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 435 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978); Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 183 (Colo. 1992) (en banc); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Ware Construction Co., 445 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla. 1983); Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 243 , 659 P.2d 734 (1983); Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill. 2d 510, 529 , 563 N.E.2d 449 (1990); Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802 , 807–809, 395 A.2d 843 (1978); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 84

2016See, e.g., Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884 (Alaska 1979); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 435 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978); Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 183 (Colo. 1992) (en banc); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Ware Construction Co., 445 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla. 1983); Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 243 , 659 P.2d 734 (1983); Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill. 2d 510, 529 , 563 N.E.2d 449 (1990); Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802 , 807–809, 395 A.2d 843 (1978); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 84

2016See, e.g., Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884 (Alaska 1979); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 435 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978); Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 183 (Colo. 1992) (en banc); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Ware Construction Co., 445 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla. 1983); Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 243 , 659 P.2d 734 (1983); Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill. 2d 510, 529 , 563 N.E.2d 449 (1990); Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802 , 807–809, 395 A.2d 843 (1978); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 84

2016See, e.g., Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884 (Alaska 1979); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 435 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978); Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 183 (Colo. 1992) (en banc); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Ware Construction Co., 445 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla. 1983); Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 243 , 659 P.2d 734 (1983); Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill. 2d 510, 529 , 563 N.E.2d 449 (1990); Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802 , 807–809, 395 A.2d 843 (1978); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 84

2014See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., [ 20 Cal. 3d 413, 431 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978)]; Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 , 736 n.6, 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994); J.

2014See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., [ 20 Cal. 3d 413, 431 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978)]; Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 264 Ga. 732 , 736 n.6, 450 S.E.2d 671 (1994); J.

2002As the California Court of Appeals has stated: `There are certain kinds of accidents — even where fairly complex machinery is involved — [that] are so bizarre that the average juror, upon hearing the particular, might reasonably think: "Whatever the user may have expected from that contraption, it certainly wasn't that." Akers v. Kelley Co ., 173 Cal. Appl.3d 633 , 651 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 513 (1985).

1997As the California Court of Appeals has stated: “There are certain kinds of accidents — even where fairly complex machinery is involved — [that] are so bizarre that the average juror, upon hearing the particulars, might reasonably think: ‘Whatever the user may have expected from that contraption, it certainly wasn’t that.’ ” Akers v. Kelley Co., 173 Cal. App. 3d 633, 651 , 219 Cal. Rptr. 513 (1985).

2016See, e.g., Mikolajc- zyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 , 528–41, 901 N.E.2d 329 (2008) (rejecting argument that risk-utility test is only test to be applied if product is complex and if injury occurred in circumstances unfamiliar to average consumer and that consumer expectation test is reserved for cases involving simple products or every- day circumstances); Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247, 250 , 864 N.E.2d 249 (2007) (‘‘In Illinois, two tests are employed when determining whether a prod- uct is unreasonably dangerous under a strict liability design-defect theory—the cons

2016See, e.g., Mikolajc- zyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 , 528–41, 901 N.E.2d 329 (2008) (rejecting argument that risk-utility test is only test to be applied if product is complex and if injury occurred in circumstances unfamiliar to average consumer and that consumer expectation test is reserved for cases involving simple products or every- day circumstances); Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247, 250 , 864 N.E.2d 249 (2007) (‘‘In Illinois, two tests are employed when determining whether a prod- uct is unreasonably dangerous under a strict liability design-defect theory—the cons

2016See, e.g., Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884 (Alaska 1979); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 435 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978); Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 183 (Colo. 1992) (en banc); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Ware Construction Co., 445 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla. 1983); Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 243 , 659 P.2d 734 (1983); Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill. 2d 510, 529 , 563 N.E.2d 449 (1990); Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802 , 807–809, 395 A.2d 843 (1978); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 84

2016See, e.g., Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884 (Alaska 1979); Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 435 , 573 P.2d 443 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1978); Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 183 (Colo. 1992) (en banc); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Ware Construction Co., 445 So. 2d 329, 331 (Fla. 1983); Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 243 , 659 P.2d 734 (1983); Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill. 2d 510, 529 , 563 N.E.2d 449 (1990); Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802 , 807–809, 395 A.2d 843 (1978); Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 84

2016See, e.g., Smith v. Central Mine Equipment Co. , 559 Fed.Appx. 679 , 681 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on strict liability claim because dangers of drill rig were obvious but allowing negligence claim based on defective design for failure to install safety device to be submitted to jury); Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co. , supra, 85 Hawai'i at 369 -70 , 944 P.2d 1279 ("The consumer expectation test for determining the defectiveness of products the use of which involve open and obvious dangers can result in finding products to be not defective that could easily

2016See, e.g., Smith v. Central Mine Equipment Co. , 559 Fed.Appx. 679 , 681 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on strict liability claim because dangers of drill rig were obvious but allowing negligence claim based on defective design for failure to install safety device to be submitted to jury); Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co. , supra, 85 Hawai'i at 369 -70 , 944 P.2d 1279 ("The consumer expectation test for determining the defectiveness of products the use of which involve open and obvious dangers can result in finding products to be not defective that could easily

2016See, e.g., Smith v. Central Mine Equipment Co. , 559 Fed.Appx. 679 , 681 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on strict liability claim because dangers of drill rig were obvious but allowing negligence claim based on defective design for failure to install safety device to be submitted to jury); Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co. , supra, 85 Hawai'i at 369 -70 , 944 P.2d 1279 ("The consumer expectation test for determining the defectiveness of products the use of which involve open and obvious dangers can result in finding products to be not defective that could easily

2016See, e.g., Smith v. Central Mine Equipment Co. , 559 Fed.Appx. 679 , 681 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on strict liability claim because dangers of drill rig were obvious but allowing negligence claim based on defective design for failure to install safety device to be submitted to jury); Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co. , supra, 85 Hawai'i at 369 -70 , 944 P.2d 1279 ("The consumer expectation test for determining the defectiveness of products the use of which involve open and obvious dangers can result in finding products to be not defective that could easily

2016Md. 2000). 17 We note that, even when a legislature has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts and identified its comments as legislative intent, a court has concluded that such action did not express an ‘‘intention to foreclose court consideration of developments in products liability law.’’ Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 220 , 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010). 18 Indeed, even in jurisdictions analyzing such claims under the consumer expectation test, courts have recognized that products liability actions prop- erly may be brought against cigarette manufacturers if they have manipulated the p

2016Md. 2000). 17 We note that, even when a legislature has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts and identified its comments as legislative intent, a court has concluded that such action did not express an ‘‘intention to foreclose court consideration of developments in products liability law.’’ Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 220 , 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010). 18 Indeed, even in jurisdictions analyzing such claims under the consumer expectation test, courts have recognized that products liability actions prop- erly may be brought against cigarette manufacturers if they have manipulated the p

2016See id., at 214-15 , 694 A.2d 1319 ("[T]he article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer... with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. 2 Restatement [Second], supra, § 402A, comment [i]." [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ); see also Giglio v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 180 Conn. 230 , 234, 429 A.2d 486 (1980) ; Slepski v. Williams Ford, Inc., 170 Conn. 18 , 23, 364 A.2d 175 (1975).

2016See id., at 214-15 , 694 A.2d 1319 ("[T]he article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer... with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. 2 Restatement [Second], supra, § 402A, comment [i]." [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ); see also Giglio v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 180 Conn. 230 , 234, 429 A.2d 486 (1980) ; Slepski v. Williams Ford, Inc., 170 Conn. 18 , 23, 364 A.2d 175 (1975).

2001This consumer expectation standard is now well established in Connecticut strict products liability decisions." Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co ., 243 Conn. 168 , 189 , 700 A.2d 38 (1997).

2001This consumer expectation standard is now well established in Connecticut strict products liability decisions." Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co ., 243 Conn. 168 , 189 , 700 A.2d 38 (1997).

1997Under the ordinary consumer expectation standard, state-of-the-art evidence “helps to determine the expectation of the ordinary consumer.” Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 544 F.2d 442, 447 (10th Cir. 1976); see Robinson v. Audi NSU Auto Union, supra, 739 F.2d 1486 (“defendant could use state-of-the-art evidence to attempt to establish the expectations of a reasonable consumer”); Brady v. Melody Homes Manufacturer, 121 Ariz. 253, 260 , 589 P.2d 896 (App. 1978) (finding state-of-the-art evidence relevant to determining consumer expectations); Crittenden v. Fibreboard Corp., supra, 58 Wash. App.

1997Under the ordinary consumer expectation standard, state-of-the-art evidence “helps to determine the expectation of the ordinary consumer.” Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 544 F.2d 442, 447 (10th Cir. 1976); see Robinson v. Audi NSU Auto Union, supra, 739 F.2d 1486 (“defendant could use state-of-the-art evidence to attempt to establish the expectations of a reasonable consumer”); Brady v. Melody Homes Manufacturer, 121 Ariz. 253, 260 , 589 P.2d 896 (App. 1978) (finding state-of-the-art evidence relevant to determining consumer expectations); Crittenden v. Fibreboard Corp., supra, 58 Wash. App.