TortsProducts liabilityDesign defectNegligencePunitive damagesconcurrence onlymajority not providedproducts liability
Facts
The excerpt states that Vincent Bifolck, individually and as executor of Jeanette D. Bifolck's estate, brought a federal product liability action against Philip Morris, Inc., alleging that the defendant's cigarettes were defectively designed and caused harm. The plaintiff sought to proceed on a negligence theory. The federal District Court certified questions concerning whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A and comment i apply to a negligent design claim under Connecticut's Product Liability Act and concerning the measure of punitive damages under General Statutes § 52-240b. Because only a concurrence is provided, no majority-approved fact statement can be given beyond that limitation.
Issue
The majority opinion is not provided. From the concurrence, the certified questions concerned whether § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and comment i apply to a negligent design product liability claim under Connecticut's Product Liability Act, and what measure of punitive damages applies under General Statutes § 52-240b.
Rule
Cannot be stated from the provided text because the user supplied only a concurrence, and the instructions require that the rule be drawn strictly from the majority or lead opinion.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Hartford, Maya Torres sued North Sound Appliances, a fictional manufacturer, after an electric kettle allegedly overheated because its internal shutoff system was designed to activate too late. She pleaded a negligent design claim under Connecticut's product liability statute and argued the jury should decide whether the design created unreasonable danger by balancing risks against the feasibility of a safer shutoff setting.
Which instruction best reflects the governing rule for Maya's negligent design claim?
Explanation. The majority answered the certified question by concluding that Restatement (Second) § 402A and comment i do not apply to a negligent design claim under Connecticut's Product Liability Act. The proper analysis for a negligent design claim is not the ordinary consumer-expectations standard of § 402A. (Derived from Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc. (n.d.).)