In cases alleging design defect under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD")—Alabama's common law concept of strict liability, a plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a safer, practical alternative design by demonstrating that (1) the injuries inflicted would have been less severe or eliminated by the use of the alternative design, and (2) the utility of the alternative design outweigh the utility of the design actually used. In Hosford v. BRK Brands, Inc., 2016 Ala. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Aug. 19, 2016), the Alabama Supreme Court further defined the proof needed to establish the existence of an alternative design, handing manufacturers a powerful argument when defending AEMLD claims.

Hosford arose out of the death of plaintiff's 4-year old daughter due to a slow, smoldering mobile home fire. The home was equipped with two BRK-manufactured smoke alarms, but only one activated during the fire. Both smoke alarms relied on "ionization technology," which is less sensitive to smoke from smoldering fires than smoke from flaming fires. By contrast, "photoelectric technology"-equipped smoke alarms are generally more sensitive to smoke from smoldering fires. Plaintiff alleged that had the alarm not been defectively designed, her daughter would have been alerted to the fire and escaped. In support of her AEMLD claim, plaintiff proposed as an alternative design a "dual-sensor" smoke alarm incorporating both ionization and photoelectric technology. In fact, BRK manufactured a dual-sensor alarm that included both sensor types and redundant circuitry, but at a significantly higher cost. After a jury verdict in favor of BRK, plaintiffs appealed. The central issue on appeal was whether plaintiffs had presented substantial evidence of a safer, practical alternative design under the AEMLD.

Affirming the trial court, the Alabama Supreme Court held that, as a matter of law, plaintiff's proposed alternative design—the dual-sensor smoke alarm, was not a safer alternative design to the ionization alarm; "rather, it is a design for a different product altogether." The Court explained that a plaintiff could not point to other, different products to demonstrate an alternative design, instead suggesting that a plaintiff must show how the product at issue could have been modified or improved. Citing the trade-offs consumers make in purchasing safety devices, the Court observed that manufacturers are "not obligated to market only one version of a product, that being the very safest design possible. If that were so, auto[] manufacturers could not offer consumers sports cars, convertibles, [or] jeeps ..."

Finally, at the end of the opinion, the Court explained that plaintiff's AEMLD claim could not "prevail in the absence of evidence establishing the existence of a safer, practical alternate design for the allegedly defective product – not a design for a different, albeit similar product, even it if it serves the same purpose...

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.