ASK: Does the product fail to perform its general intended function?

O Is there circumstantial evidence oI a general Iailure?

4 $ee RULE Ior inIerence (e.g. res ipsa)
O Is it maniIestly unreasonable?


ASK: Does the product fail to perform as promised or described?
O $EE: express warranty


ASK: Does the product work but causes harm in some conditions or uses?
O %he old patent danger RULE replaced by NEGLIGENCE
O Negligence the speciIic action was unreasonable
$EE: Restatement (2d) 402A strict liability Ior unreasonable danger based on
reasonable consumer expectations
AND
$EE: R.A.D. Risk Utility %ests
AND
$EE: Restatement (3d) 2(b) Ioreseeable risk oI harm could have been avoided by a
reasonable alternative design AND omission renders the product not reasonably saIe

ASK: Is the product inherently unreasonable when used as intended?
$EE: Restatement (3d) 2(d) p. 506
Restatement (3d) 2(e) maniIestly unreasonable design rule p. 507

ASK: Was there a failure to instruct or warn about the possible dangers of the
product?
$EE: Restatement (2d) 402A(j)
O %here is a duty to warn with speciIicity IF the danger is not generally known
O anuIacturer can assume that the warning will be read and heeded
O %he product will not be Iound to be unreasonably dangerous IF it is saIe when the
warning is Iollowed (but see &49)

$EE: Restatement (3d) 2 p. 529
O DeIective due to inadequate