Is a Reasonable Alternative Design Required to Prove a Design Defect in Utah?

A safer alternative design is not an expressly stated element of every Utah defective-design claim. But in federal court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has interpreted Utah law to require proof that a safer, practicable alternative design was available. Utah’s own model jury instructions acknowledge that the question remains unsettled in the state’s appellate courts. The difference matters because a case can succeed or fail depending on the proof required, the court hearing it, and the particular product involved.

For an injured person, this is not merely an argument about legal terminology. It determines what an engineer must investigate, which company records may be needed, and whether the plaintiff can survive a motion for summary judgment. It also matters when a manufacturer argues that the injured person cannot identify exactly how its product should have been redesigned. A careful Utah product-liability investigation addresses the safer-design issue without assuming that every claim must rise or fall on it.

What Utah’s Product Liability Act Actually Requires

Utah Code sections 78B-6-702 and 78B-6-703 generally ask whether a product had a defect when it was sold by the manufacturer or initial seller and whether that defect made the product unreasonably dangerous. The statutory definition of unreasonably dangerous focuses on danger beyond what an ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer, or user would contemplate, taking account of the product and the particular user’s knowledge and experience. The statute does not impose a general, express requirement that plaintiffs identify a safer alternative design for every ordinary product. A separate 2026 provision for certain highly automated driving systems is an important exception discussed below.

The basic strict-liability framework also requires proof that the defect caused the injury. A product can be dangerous without being legally defective, and a genuine defect does not establish damages unless it contributed to the harm being claimed. The Utah Model Jury Instructions identify the defect, unreasonable danger, existence of the defect at the relevant time, and causation as the core issues in a design-defect case. Those requirements distinguish a serious legal claim from an allegation that the product simply should have been better.

Why Federal Courts Require Proof of a Safer Alternative Design

In Allen v. Minnstar, Inc., the Tenth Circuit predicted that Utah would require a plaintiff alleging a design defect to establish an alternative, safer design that was practicable under the circumstances and available when the product was sold. The court treated feasibility as a real engineering and economic question rather than an invitation to imagine an improved product. That interpretation became especially consequential in Wankier v. Crown Equipment Corp., where the Tenth Circuit reversed a plaintiff’s verdict because the jury had not been instructed on the safer-alternative-design requirement. Under those decisions, a federal court applying Utah law generally treats that proof as necessary to a strict-liability design-defect claim.

The distinction between federal and state authority is important. Allen and Wankier were federal decisions predicting or applying Utah law, not decisions of the Utah Supreme Court adopting an additional element for every state-court case. The Tenth Circuit explained in Wankier that it was bound by its earlier interpretation unless an intervening authoritative decision or change in law justified a different approach. A plaintiff litigating a Utah design-defect claim in federal court should therefore prepare to prove a specific, feasible alternative rather than relying on the possibility that Utah’s appellate courts might eventually adopt another rule.

The practical consequence appeared again in Petersen v. Raymond Corp., a 2021 Tenth Circuit forklift case. The plaintiff argued that a door would have reduced the risk of a crushing injury, but the expert did not adequately identify and analyze a definite proposed door design. The appellate court upheld exclusion of the expert’s opinion and summary judgment for the manufacturer because a broad suggestion to add some sort of door was not enough. The case illustrates why the quality and specificity of engineering proof can be as important as the underlying safety concern.

Why the Question Remains Open in Utah State Courts

Utah’s Model Jury Instruction CV1003 offers two alternative definitions of a design defect. Alternative A asks whether the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary user would expect during reasonably foreseeable use. Alternative B adds a requirement that a safer, technically and economically feasible alternative design existed at the relevant time. The committee notes expressly recognize that whether this additional requirement is an element may be an open question under Utah state appellate law.

Model instructions help lawyers and judges formulate jury charges, but they do not create binding law or resolve a dispute that the appellate courts have not decided. A Utah state judge must consider the governing statutes, decisions, evidence, and arguments when deciding which instruction is appropriate. That leaves room for a plaintiff to argue that consumer expectations and unreasonable danger establish a design defect without mandatory proof of an alternative. It would nevertheless be unwise to treat the federal cases as irrelevant, because defendants can rely on them and seek summary judgment.

In 2025, Utah legislators considered Senate Bill 160, which would have stated that a claimant need not establish a safer feasible alternative design to prevail on an ordinary design-defect claim. The bill did not pass. Its introduction demonstrates that the issue has drawn legislative attention, but a failed proposal neither adds an element to the law nor definitively removes one. The governing analysis must come from the statutes and decisions actually in force, including the narrower legislation that did become law in 2026.

What Counts as a Reasonable, Feasible Alternative Design?

A meaningful alternative is more than the assertion that a product could have been safer. It must identify a particular design change and provide a defensible basis to conclude that the change could have reduced the relevant danger without creating offsetting problems that defeat its usefulness. Engineering drawings, existing comparable products, physical testing, accepted technical methods, and manufacturer design records may help establish feasibility. The relevant inquiry also includes the technology, costs, and manufacturing capabilities available at the legally relevant time.

For example, consider a piece of industrial equipment that exposes an operator’s hand to a moving blade. A proposed guard or interlock might be a feasible alternative if engineering evidence shows how it would operate, fit the equipment, and prevent the injury while allowing the machine to perform its intended function. A general statement that manufacturers should always install more guards does not answer those questions. The evidence must connect a concrete safety measure to the dangerous mechanism that caused the injury.

A similar inquiry can arise when a pressure cooker releases its lid while dangerous pressure remains inside. The investigation may compare locking mechanisms, pressure sensors, redundant interlocks, and designs already used in similar products. Yet the plaintiff must still show how a particular proposed mechanism would address the failure mode and could have been implemented in the relevant period. In a serious case, those answers often require a qualified engineer, the actual product, and records that the manufacturer may be reluctant to disclose.

Design Defects Are Not the Same as Manufacturing or Warning Defects

A manufacturing defect concerns a product that departed from its intended specifications, such as a component that was improperly assembled or a batch that contained a dangerously defective part. A warning defect concerns a failure to communicate a legally required warning or instruction about a product’s risks. Neither theory is automatically transformed into a defective-design claim simply because a safer product might have been possible. The Tenth Circuit itself recognized in Wankier that the alternative-design issue does not arise in the same way for manufacturing-defect and failure-to-warn theories.

That distinction can preserve a meritorious claim when the initial explanation of the failure turns out to be incomplete. A burned consumer may discover a poorly assembled electrical connection rather than a flawed design used across an entire product line. An injured worker may have evidence of both an unsafe control layout and inadequate warnings, requiring separate legal and factual analysis. The appropriate theories should follow the evidence, not be selected simply to avoid a challenging proof requirement.

The Important 2026 Exception for Highly Automated Vehicles

Utah amended its Product Liability Act in 2026 to address certain level-four and level-five automated driving systems. For claims alleging a defect in the operation of those covered systems, section 78B-6-703(3) expressly requires the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable and feasible alternative design existed when the system was designed and manufactured. The same provision imposes a separate requirement concerning the system’s aggregate injury performance compared with human drivers performing a similar task. These special rules should not be mistaken for the governing test for an ordinary defective ladder, appliance, power tool, or manually driven vehicle.

That distinction is especially significant as vehicle technology changes. A collision involving driver assistance does not automatically qualify as a level-four or level-five automated-driving-system claim, and not every defect in a vehicle concerns the automated system’s operation. The system’s classification, whether it was engaged, the alleged defect, and the claim being asserted must be evaluated carefully. Applying the new special statutory rule to an unrelated product would misstate Utah law.

How a Strong Utah Design-Defect Case Is Built

The first priority is preserving the product and the circumstances of the failure. Model and serial numbers, photographs, purchase records, instructions, packaging, inspection records, electronic logs, and damaged components can help identify what went wrong. A product that is returned to a manufacturer, repaired, dismantled, or discarded before an independent examination may become much harder to evaluate. Counsel can also arrange appropriate preservation notices and inspection protocols so that testing does not unnecessarily destroy evidence needed by either side.

The next task is identifying the actual safety theory. In a design case, the evidence may include earlier and later product designs, internal hazard analyses, prototypes, incident reports, engineering-change requests, warranty claims, and testing from competing products. Some evidence may support an alternative-design theory, while other evidence may establish that the product behaved in a way ordinary users could not reasonably anticipate. A disciplined investigation examines both paths rather than assuming that the existence of one safety feature settles the legal case.

Causation requires equal attention. A safer guard that could not have prevented the particular injury is not enough, and neither is a design flaw unrelated to the accident. Medical records, imaging, operative reports, rehabilitation evidence, wage records, and expert opinions connect the product failure to the injuries and their consequences. For a serious Utah claim, that connection may include future treatment, lasting impairment, lost earning capacity, and the effects of injury on ordinary activities.

How Manufacturers and Insurers Challenge These Claims

A manufacturer may argue that the product complied with applicable government standards, that the risk was obvious, that the user misused the product, or that an alternative design would introduce other hazards. Under section 78B-6-703(2), conformity with certain applicable government standards can create a rebuttable presumption that an ordinary product was free from a defect. That presumption is not an automatic finding that the product was safe in every relevant respect. The response depends on the precise standard, the conduct it covers, and the evidence about the actual hazard.

Insurers and defense experts may also attempt to narrow the injury itself. They may concede that a product incident occurred but contend that the claimant’s surgery, neurological problems, scarring, inability to work, or future care needs were caused by something else. A quick offer, a request for a recorded account, or a demand that the consumer surrender the product can affect the evidentiary position of an injured person before the technical investigation is complete. Serious claims should be evaluated with the product evidence, medical prognosis, coverage issues, potential liens, and any proposed release language understood.

Must the Alternative Design Be Identified in the Initial Complaint?

An injured plaintiff does not necessarily need a completed engineering redesign before filing a complaint. In James v. iMoney Tools LLC, a 2025 District of Utah decision, the court rejected an argument that a safer alternative design had to be pleaded in the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss. The court distinguished the pleading stage from the evidentiary standard applied at summary judgment. That distinction allows an adequately supported claim to proceed into discovery without pretending that every technical question has already been answered.

There is a critical limitation to that point. Surviving a motion to dismiss does not relieve the plaintiff of proving the elements ultimately required under the governing law. If the claim proceeds under the Tenth Circuit’s rule, the plaintiff may need admissible engineering testimony identifying a specific feasible design when the evidence is tested at summary judgment or trial. Early expert involvement and timely requests for the manufacturer’s records can prevent a pleading victory from becoming an evidentiary defeat.

Utah Filing Deadlines and the Consequences of Delay

Utah Code section 78B-6-706 generally provides a two-year limitation period running from when the claimant discovered, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause. Determining when that period starts can be contested, and additional claim-specific issues may change the analysis. Product cases also involve deadlines for preserving evidence and disclosing experts that may become decisive long before trial. Waiting for the manufacturer to finish its own investigation can jeopardize information that the injured person’s case requires.

A product-liability claim also has to account for the full measure of proven loss, not merely the cost of replacing the defective item. Serious injuries can require hospitalization, reconstructive surgery, prolonged therapy, assistance at home, and significant time away from work. Families dealing with catastrophic injury or death may face losses extending far beyond the immediate accident. Proper investigation of the defect and careful documentation of damages are both necessary to pursue meaningful compensation.

The Legal Question Should Not Obscure the Injury

The most accurate answer is that Utah has not adopted a single, universally applicable alternative-design requirement for every defective-product case. Federal decisions applying Utah law require that evidence in ordinary strict-liability design-defect litigation, while Utah’s model instructions recognize an unresolved state-law question and a 2026 statute expressly governs certain automated driving systems. The facts may also support manufacturing-defect, warning-defect, or negligence theories with different proof requirements. The task is to identify the appropriate claim, preserve the evidence, and prepare for the stricter plausible interpretation rather than surrender a serious case to an oversimplified legal argument.

The Legal Beagle evaluates serious Utah product injuries with attention to both the technical proof and the long-term consequences for the injured person. Attorney Gabriel K. White can assess what caused the failure, what information must be preserved, and which legal theories the available evidence supports. Early involvement matters when a manufacturer or insurer controls records that may determine whether a particular safety improvement was feasible. An injured person should not have to concede the case merely because the manufacturer insists that no alternative design has been identified yet.

Call The Legal Beagle at (801) 915-6152 or contact the firm at https://www.mylegalbeagle.com/contact.