Persuasive brief · 90 minutes
Oppose a manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on a design defect claim by showing a reasonable alternative design. You have 90 minutes. To: Associate. Use the File and the Library only, then compare your draft with the rubric and the model answer below.
To: Associate. From: Marisol Quinn, Partner. Re: Reyes v. Halloran Equipment Co. Our client, Teresa Reyes, lost two fingers when her hand entered a commercial dough mixer while the bowl was turning. Halloran has moved for summary judgment on the design defect claim. Please draft the Argument section of a brief opposing the motion. Argue that a reasonable jury could find the mixer unreasonably dangerous because of its design. Use only the Library, address Halloran's two arguments, and be candid about the weaker facts.
Ms. Reyes, a bakery worker, was scraping dough from a mixer bowl on March 4. The guard over the bowl was a hinged wire cage. She lifted the cage to scrape the side, and the mixing arm kept turning. Her right hand was caught and she lost the index and middle fingers. The mixer was a Halloran Model 60, sold to the bakery in 2019. It has a warning label on the cage that reads: KEEP HANDS AWAY. The bakery says Ms. Reyes had been trained not to lift the cage while the mixer ran.
I examined the Model 60. A guard interlock is a switch that cuts power to the motor when the cage is lifted. I estimate that adding one to the Model 60 would cost the manufacturer about $38 per unit and would not change how the mixer operates when the cage is closed. Two competing manufacturers sell commercial mixers of comparable size with interlocks. In my opinion, a mixer with an interlock would have stopped the arm when Ms. Reyes lifted the cage, and would have prevented the injury. The Model 60 has a hinged cage that can be lifted while the motor runs.
Halloran argues (1) that the Model 60 met the industry safety standard in effect when it was sold, which did not require an interlock, and (2) that the label warned users to keep hands away, so any risk was obvious and adequately warned.
A manufacturer is liable for harm caused by a product that is not reasonably safe because of its design if the foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by a reasonable alternative design, and the omission of the alternative renders the product not reasonably safe.
Whether a design is reasonably safe is a jury question when the plaintiff offers evidence of a feasible alternative. Factors include the likelihood and seriousness of harm, the cost and feasibility of the alternative, and its effect on the product's usefulness. A plaintiff ordinarily proves a reasonable alternative design through expert testimony. Compliance with an industry standard is relevant evidence but does not by itself establish that the design is reasonably safe.
The plaintiff's expert testified that a blade-stop control costing a few dollars would have prevented the injury, and that competitors used it. Held: summary judgment for the manufacturer was reversed. A plaintiff need not build a prototype, and expert testimony that addresses cost, feasibility, and effect on function is enough to reach a jury. A warning does not make a product reasonably safe if a feasible design change would have removed the danger, because the law does not allow a manufacturer to rely on a warning in place of a safer design.
Graders score a response against these criteria, and every one of them depends on using only the facts in the File and only the rules in the Library, so treat the list as a check for your draft after the first pass and again before you stop writing.
Next task: An insurer refuses to defend a tavern in an assault suit. MPT document library