The Restatement Third of Torts, Products Liability, separates manufacturing defects governed by strict liability from design and warning defects governed by a reasonableness standard requiring a reasonable alternative design.
Adoption has been partial and uneven.
Alternative Names:
Restatement Third, Third Restatement of Torts
Why it Matters?
The reasonable alternative design requirement is what makes adoption consequential, since it obligates a plaintiff to establish a specific feasible alternative rather than merely proving the product was dangerous. States adopting it created a meaningful additional element, while consumer expectation jurisdictions did not. Determining which framework governs is the threshold question in any design case and varies even within a single state by product category.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What did the Restatement Third change?
Has it been adopted uniformly?
