David A. McDougall, Individually and as Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Decedent Cynthia A. McDougall v. CRC Industries, Inc.

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a jury verdict against CRC Industries in a Minnesota products-liability case involving a duster containing difluoroethane gas. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a safer alternative design or show that the product was so dangerous it should be removed from the market, as required to establish an unreasonably dangerous defective design under Minnesota law. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of judgment as a matter of law in CRC’s favor.

Holdings

1. To establish that a product is unreasonably dangerous under Minnesota law, a plaintiff ordinarily must present evidence of a safer alternative design; in the rare case where no feasible alternative design exists, the plaintiff must assert and support that the product should be removed from the market altogether.
2. CRC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because McDougall presented neither evidence of a safer alternative design nor evidence that the duster was so dangerous that it should be removed from the market.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence provided a legally sufficient basis for the jury to find that CRC's duster was unreasonably dangerous under Minnesota's defective-design product-liability law.
2. Whether a plaintiff asserting a Minnesota defective-design claim must present evidence of a feasible safer alternative design or, in a rare case, evidence that the product should be removed from the market.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded