“Maryland requires a plaintiff in a design defect case to prove ... [t]he existence of an alternative design that is safer than the design used in the suspect product”
How later courts described this case
- “Maryland requires a plaintiff in a design defect case to prove ... [t]he existence of an alternative design that is safer than the design used in the suspect product”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERT N. DUGAN, Judge (Specially Assigned),
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The evidence was sufficient to support an inference that a different steering column design could have been installed in the 1989 Nissan pickup truck at a reasonable cost. Proof that another automobile manufacturer is using an alternative design in a *132 substantially similar automobile permits the inference that appellant could have used the same steering column without an unreasonable manufacturing expense. Furthermore, the majority improperly held that it was appellee’s burden to prove the cost-effectiveness of the self-aligning cannister design. In Dancy v. Hyster Co., 127 F.3d 649 (1997), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit held as follows:
In this case, Plaintiff does not contend that the lift truck malfunctioned in any way; he contends the lift truck was not designed properly because it lacked a safety device.... Although Dancy does not have the burden of proving that his “alternative safer design was available and feasible in terms of cost, practicality and technological possibility,” he still has the burden of proving the existence of a defect by showing that a safer alternative design actually exists.
Id. at 653-54 . (Citations Omitted.) See also Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public Service Com’n of Maryland, 305 Md. 145, 174 , 501 A.2d 1307 (1986) (The Court of Appeals held that BG & E, not the People’s Counsel, carried the burden of proving that a power outage was not “the result of its failure to implement cost-effective precautionary measures.”) I believe it was error to require that appellee shoulder the burden of proving that another steering column design would have been feasible.