Product Liability Design Defect Claims in South Carolina: The Risk-Utility Test After Branham

South Carolina's product liability law underwent a significant shift when the Supreme Court decided Branham v. Ford Motor Co. The court adopted the risk-utility test for design defect claims, displacing the older consumer expectation test as the primary analytical framework. Understanding this decision is essential for any plaintiff pursuing a defective product claim in South Carolina — whether the product is a vehicle, a piece of industrial equipment, a consumer appliance, or a medical device.

What Branham Changed

Before Branham, South Carolina courts applied the consumer expectations test for design defect claims: a product was defective if it was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect. The Supreme Court in Branham found that this test was inadequate for complex products where consumers have no reasonable expectations about the design because they lack the technical knowledge to form them.

The risk-utility test adopted in Branham requires a plaintiff to prove:

1. The product was unreasonably dangerous because the risks of the design outweighed its utility
2. A reasonable alternative design existed at the time of manufacture — one that was technically feasible, would have reduced or eliminated the risk, and would not have substantially impaired the product's utility
3. The failure to use the alternative design caused the plaintiff's injury

The reasonable alternative design requirement is the most demanding element. It generally requires expert testimony from a qualified engineer or design specialist who can identify a specific alternative, explain why it would have reduced the risk, confirm it was feasible at the time of manufacture, and address the cost and utility tradeoffs involved.

Consumer Expectations Test: Is It Gone?

Not entirely. South Carolina courts have preserved the consumer expectations test for cases involving simple products where ordinary consumers can form reasonable expectations — a kitchen knife that breaks unexpectedly, for example, versus a vehicle rollover stability system. The distinction between simple and complex products matters in deciding which analytical framework applies.

Implications for Charleston Plaintiffs

In vehicle crash cases — which make up a substantial portion of South Carolina product liability litigation — Branham's risk-utility framework applies to claims about seatbelt restraint systems, airbag deployment, fuel system integrity, roof crush resistance, and electronic stability control. Defective equipment cases in the Charleston-area construction and maritime industries frequently involve the same framework applied to cranes, scaffolding systems, power tools, and lifting equipment.

How Traywick Law Helps

Our office evaluates product liability claims arising from vehicle defects, defective equipment, and dangerous consumer products throughout the Charleston area. Visit the Traywick Legal Blog for more analysis.

Talk to a Charleston Attorney

If you have questions about how this issue affects your situation in Charleston, Mount Pleasant, or anywhere in the Lowcountry, contact Traywick Law Offices for a free consultation. Call (843) 343-5092.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different — please consult an attorney about your specific situation.

← Back to Traywick's Legal Blog