Arguments Against Stark's Theory Of Defective Design

Design Defect Stark can use the theory of defective design in its case against Ford by making the claim that the seat belt was defectively designed. The Plaintiff must provide evidence that supports the idea that the manufacturer, Ford, did not use reasonable care when designing the seat belt. Ford will want to argue that the average consumer would not find the seat belt unreasonably dangerous. Another point that Ford might argue is the issue of viability, due to constraints on resources and whether they would have likely known of an alternative. The design defect may not have a causal relationship to Cheyenne’s injury, which can further Ford’s claims against the plaintiff.
Directed Verdict Ford may move for a directed verdict based on the evidence presented by the Plaintiff. Ford will have to prove that the evidence presented does not support Stark’s claim. Stark on the other hand is not burdened with proving that alternative designs would actually improve its safety; instead, the court is responsible for examining the evidence and deciding whether it supports Ford’s claims. A directed verdict depends on the dismissal, by the court, of issues that the evidence does not support. Ford will have to give reasons that the court should go through with this motion based on the evidence provided.
Stark argues that Ford should have foreseen the possible alteration of the seat belt. Ford argues that they provided adequate instructions regarding the proper use of the seat belt. The jury will have to decide if the improper use of the seat belt (placing behind one’s back) was reasonably foreseeable, thereby placing fault on