Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.--62 Md. App. 101, 488 A.2d 516 (1985)
Facts
Michael Troja (plaintiff) was hired by Robert Krohn to build a bar. He removed the saw at issue from its base and tried to use the saw to make a cross-cut. As he guided the wood into the saw blade with his bare hand, he accidentally amputated his thumb. The plaintiff subsequently brought this suit against the manufacturer of the saw, Black and Decker Manufacturing Company (defendant), for negligence and strict liability. The trial court refused to allow expert’s testimony on the plaintiff’s side and granted the defendant's motion to direct verdict.
Issue
Is the plaintiff entitled for damages for design defect even in the absence of the evidence that manufacturer had enough technological feasibility of manufacturing a safer product at the time of process?
Rules
Singleton v. International Harvestor Co., 685 F.2d 112 (4th Cir.1981),
In order to carry a case to the jury, the evidence should show the technological feasibility of manufacturing a product with the suggested safety device at the time the suspect product was manufactured; the availability of the materials required; the cost of production of the suggested device; price to the consumer, including that of the suggested device; and the chances of consumer acceptance of a model incorporating such features.
Application
The plaintiff contended that the defendant is negligent in not making defective design by not providing a safeguarding system which would prevent operation in unsafe situations. In part of his argument, the plaintiff provided an expert. However, the expert had no experience in saw design and he was unable to furnish an alternative design. According to Singleton v. International Harvestor Co., the technological feasibility of manufacturing a product with the suggested safety device should be provided to establish design defects. Here, the plaintiff was unable to suggest such feasibility as was required in the common law. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to build the argument that the saw had defective design.
Holding
No, technological feasibility of manufacturing a safer product at the time is required for establishing design defects.
Conclusion
Affirmed.
Feedback and notes
Troja and Murray both argued for strict liability. Unlike Murray, Troja was unable to bolster his argument as the elements of establishment of design defect is harsher than manufacturing defect. Although I focused on feasibility of manufacturing in my brief, Wade provided seven useful factors in determining whether the suspect product is reasonably safe.
(1) The usefulness and desirability of the product — its utility to the user and to the public as a whole.
(2) The safety aspects of the product — the likelihood that it will cause injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury.
(3) The availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe.
(4) The manufacturer's ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility.
(5) The user's ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product.
(6) The user's anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability, because of general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or of the existence of suitable warnings or instructions.
(7) The feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance.
Design defect takes into account all of the seven factors whereas manufacturing defect requires less than all of seven.