In January, I posted regarding the impact of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015).  In that post I explained that even after Aubin, the consumer expectations test should not be applied in all design defect strict product liability cases because it is still up to the individual trial court judges to decide whether the consumer expectations and risk-utility tests should be given alternatively or together depending on the individual circumstances presented in each case. Some of the reasons for this conclusion included that the standard jury instructions remain unchanged; that numerous courts have ruled some products are too complex for the application of the consumer expectations test; that cases subject to the learned intermediary doctrine by definition involve a product too complex to permit the application of the consumer expectations test; and that the risk-utility test traces its roots to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, not the Restatement (Third) of Torts which was rejected in Aubin.
Continue Reading

In Florida, there are two tests that a jury may apply in determining whether a product is defectively designed under a strict liability theory: the “consumer expectation test” and the “risk-utility test.”  Plaintiffs usually prefer the consumer expectation test because it is generally easier for them to prove, while defendants prefer the “risk-utility test.”  Late last year, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So.3d 489 (Fla. 2015).  Almost immediately, a number of commentators argued that Aubin spelled the end of the exclusive application of the risk-utility test in all Florida cases involving strict liability design defect claims.  But is that really true?
Continue Reading