Maywald v. Toyota Motor Corp., 591 P.3d 886 (2026) (holding that (1) a plaintiff must establish that the product is both defective and unreasonably dangerous, (2) the risk-utility test in design defect cases is to be applied globally to the product as it exists at the time it is sold, instead of marginally, that is, evaluating the risks and benefits of the plaintiff’s proffered alternative design against the product, and (3) a negligent design claim requires proof of a defect.).
- 591 P.3d at 892 (“Because defectiveness and unreasonable danger are analytically distinct, a plaintiff must establish both. A plaintiff must first prove that the product was defective. . . . The plaintiff must also prove that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. Only when both elements are satisfied may strict product liability be imposed.”)
- 591 P.3d at 895 (“The risk/benefit analysis . . . focuses on the risks and benefits inherent in the challenged design itself . . . . [S]trict liability does not arise from weighing the risks and benefits of an alternative design . . . . Our inquiry . . . remains focused on whether the product, as designed and sold, was reasonably safe for its intended and ordinary use, not whether additional features could have made it safer.”)
- 591 P.3d at 894 (“[A] negligent design defect claim, like a strict liability design defect claim, requires establishing that the product at issue was defective in the first instance.”)