\u3cem\u3eTimmy Tumble v. Cascade Bicycle Co.\u3c/em\u3e: A Hypothetical Case Under the \u3cem\u3eRestatement (Third)\u3c/em\u3e Standard for Design Defect

These briefs were written for a hypothetical design defect case. Bowbeer and Cavanaugh argue for, and Stewart argues against, the adoption of the Restatement (Third)\u27s reasonable alternative design standard and the rejection of the Restatement (Second)\u27s consumer expectations test in the hypothetical State of Hutchins. The authors discuss the relative merits of the two tests, as well as the status to be accorded to Restatement standards in general. To do so Bowbeer, Cavanaugh, and Stewart rely upon precedent from other jurisdictions, one hypothetical Hutchins case, and various policy arguments advanced in the deliberations about adopting the new Restatement. In addition to discussing these matters in the abstract, the briefs offer a concrete and specific illustration of how arguments for and against the application of the reasonable alternative design standard should proceed in practice. The case is now before the Hutchins Court of Appeals on Defendant\u27s interlocutory appeal (permitted under the State of Hutchins Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) from the district court\u27s denial of Defendant\u27s motion for partial summary judgment