Consumer expectation test

What is the consumer expectation test?

The consumer expectation test measures a product against what an ordinary consumer would anticipate about its safety. A product failing that expectation is defective.

It was the traditional approach in product liability and remains intuitive. People buying a product form reasonable assumptions about how it will behave.

It requires no expert testimony about design alternatives, which makes it simpler where it applies.

It reflects an older understanding of products as things ordinary people could evaluate through use.

Where does the test work well?

It fits products whose safe operation an ordinary person can evaluate.

In each of these the failure is one an ordinary buyer would immediately recognize as wrong.

• Food containing a foreign object
• A beverage bottle that shatters in normal handling
• A chair that collapses under ordinary weight
• A hand tool that breaks during intended use
• Contaminated consumer goods

Why does it fail for complex products?

Because ordinary consumers have no informed expectations about the internal engineering of an airbag, a medical device or an industrial machine.

Asking a jury what an ordinary user would expect about a system they cannot evaluate produces guesswork rather than analysis.

This is why New Jersey relies primarily on the risk utility test for design defect claims involving complex products.

Courts recognized this limitation as products grew more technically complex through the second half of the twentieth century.

What role does it still play?

It remains relevant to simple products and continues to inform the broader analysis, since user expectations bear on the awareness factors within risk utility.

It also connects to failure to warn claims, because warnings shape what a consumer reasonably expects.

Because the applicable test affects what evidence is required, identifying which framework governs is an early strategic question in a product case.

Expert testimony on how the failure occurred is generally still required even where the test itself is simpler.

It also remains the intuitive framing most jurors bring with them, which affects how design cases are argued even under a different formal test.

Common questions

Which test applies to my case?

It depends on the product's complexity. Simple products may be evaluated on consumer expectations while complex ones are analyzed under risk utility.

Do I need an expert under this test?

Often less so than under risk utility, though experts are still typically retained on causation and on how the failure occurred.

Can both tests apply?

Courts sometimes consider consumer expectations within the broader risk utility weighing, particularly on the user awareness factors.

Does this test apply to a car?

Vehicles are complex products, so design claims involving them are generally analyzed under the risk utility test. Consumer expectations may still inform the analysis, particularly on whether a user would have anticipated the specific failure that occurred. Which test governs affects what expert evidence is required, so the question is settled early in a product case rather than left open. Your attorney raises it at the outset.