risk-utility analysis in New York

2017The risk-utility factors that must be considered are: (1) the product’s utility to the public as a whole; (2) its utility to the individual user; (3) the likelihood that the product will cause injury; (4) the availability of a safer design; (5) the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer; (6) the degree of awareness of the potential danger that can be attributed to the injured user; and (7) the manufacturer’s ability to spread the cost of safety-related design changes (see Denny v Ford Motor Co., 87 NY2d 248, 257 [1995]).

2012In determining whether a product has been defectively designed, a risk-utility analysis is performed and the factors to be considered are “(1) the product’s utility to the public as a whole, (2) its utility to the individual user, (3) the likelihood that the product will cause injury, (4) the availability of a safer design, (5) the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced, (6) the degree of awareness of the product’s potential danger that can reasonably be attributed to the injured user, and (7) the manufacturer’s a

2019In Voss, we identified a series of factors that are relevant to the jury’s risk-utility analysis, including: (1) the product’s utility “to the public as a whole and to the individual user; (2) the nature of the product – that is, the likelihood that it will cause injury; (3) the availability of a safer design; (4) the potential for designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced; (5) the ability of the plaintiff to have avoided injury by careful use of the product; (6) the degree of awareness of the potential danger of the product which

2018Furthermore, the risk-utility analysis of the device favors Concentric, as the Retriever was the only device on the market at the time that could mechanically remove clots and one of only three FDA-devices approved to remove foreign bodies, and had a low fracture rate of less than .25% ( see Yun Tung Chow v Reckitt & Colman, Inc. , 17 NY3d 29, 34 [2011]; Voss at 108-109 ).

2019In Scarangella v Thomas Built Buses, this Court recognized an exception to a manufacturer’s strict liability for a design defect and shifted the manufacturer’s responsibility for the risk-utility analysis to a buyer with superior knowledge about the - 10 - - 11 - No. 29 risks and benefits of the buyer’s contemplated use without the optional safety device. 6 “In an effort to lend predictability to litigation of this kind,” (Passante v Agway, 12 NY3d 372, 384 [2009]), the Court identified “some governing principles for cases where a plaintiff claims that a product without an optional safety feat

2019In Scarangella v Thomas Built Buses, this Court recognized an exception to a manufacturer’s strict liability for a design defect and shifted the manufacturer’s responsibility for the risk-utility analysis to a buyer with superior knowledge about the - 10 - - 11 - No. 29 risks and benefits of the buyer’s contemplated use without the optional safety device. 6 “In an effort to lend predictability to litigation of this kind,” (Passante v Agway, 12 NY3d 372, 384 [2009]), the Court identified “some governing principles for cases where a plaintiff claims that a product without an optional safety feat

2019In Scarangella v Thomas Built Buses, this Court recognized an exception to a manufacturer’s strict liability for a design defect and shifted the manufacturer’s responsibility for the risk-utility analysis to a buyer with superior knowledge about the - 10 - - 11 - No. 29 risks and benefits of the buyer’s contemplated use without the optional safety device. 6 “In an effort to lend predictability to litigation of this kind,” (Passante v Agway, 12 NY3d 372, 384 [2009]), the Court identified “some governing principles for cases where a plaintiff claims that a product without an optional safety feat

2019In Scarangella v Thomas Built Buses, this Court recognized an exception to a manufacturer’s strict liability for a design defect and shifted the manufacturer’s responsibility for the risk-utility analysis to a buyer with superior knowledge about the - 10 - - 11 - No. 29 risks and benefits of the buyer’s contemplated use without the optional safety device. 6 “In an effort to lend predictability to litigation of this kind,” (Passante v Agway, 12 NY3d 372, 384 [2009]), the Court identified “some governing principles for cases where a plaintiff claims that a product without an optional safety feat

2018To the extent that plaintiffs' experts' relied upon tests, for which the methodology was provided in only general terms, unsupported by analysis or data, the same was properly rejected by the motion court as lacking probative value ( see Stalker v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 60 AD3d 1173, 1175 [3d Dept 2009]).

2008The defendant manufacturer, on the other hand, may present evidence in opposition seeking to show that the product is a safe product—that is, one whose utility outweighs its risks when the product has been designed so that the risks are reduced to the greatest extent possible while retaining the product’s inherent usefulness at an acceptable cost.” (Voss, 59 NY2d at 108 [citations omitted].) Among the factors to be considered in the risk-utility analysis is “the availability of a safer design” (id. at 109).