Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the Nevada Supreme Court urging the court to adopt the “reasonable alternative design” test with a risk-utility component rather than the historical “consumer expectation test” in a complex product design liability litigation involving a rollover accident. This was an appeal from a lower court judgement which awarded the plaintiffs damages based on strict product liability theory. The test supported by the NAM encourages manufacturers to continue to be innovative and design products to optimize safety. The NAM’s brief supported this position and urged the Nevada Supreme Court to instead support a “reasonable alternative design” test with a risk-utility component that allows companies to design optimally safer products and provides the factfinder with an objective standard for evaluating whether a proposed alternative design for a complex product would have resulted in an overall safer product. The Nevada Supreme Court did not agree with the NAM’s arguments and declined to adopt a risk-utility test for strict product liability design defect claims.