AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
Linda M. GREEN, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SMITH & NEPHEW AHP, INC., a/k/a Smith & Nephew Perry, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
*780 For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Joseph D. Kearney, Milwaukee; Donald R. Peterson, Sherry A. Knutson and Peterson Johnson & Murray, S.C., Milwaukee; Thomas W. Merrill, Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Hille R. Sheppard, Robert N. Hochman and Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Illinois, and oral argument by Joseph D. Kearney.
*781 For the plaintiff-respondent there was a brief by Robert L. Habush, Mark S. Young, Virginia M. Antoine and Habush, Habush, Davis & Rottier, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Robert L. Habush.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by O. Thomas Armstrong and Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, Mary A. Wells, L. Michael Brooks, Jr., and Wells, Anderson & Race LLC, Denver, CO, and Hugh F. Young, Jr., Reston, VA, on behalf of the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.
ś 1. JON P. WILCOX, J.
This case arises from a products liability claim brought by Linda M. Green (Green) against Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc. (S&N). Green alleged that S&N manufactured defective and unreasonably dangerous latex medical gloves, which caused her to suffer injuries arising from allergic reactions to the proteins in those gloves. Accordingly, Green claimed, S&N should be held strictly liable for these injuries.
ś 2. At the close of the trial on Green's claim, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Green and against S&N. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Judge Charles F. Kahn, Jr., entered judgment on the verdict. S&N subsequently appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court judgment in its entirety. Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc., 2000 WI App 192, 238 Wis. 2d 477, 617 N.W.2d 881.
ś 3. S&N now argues to this court that the jury verdict and, consequently, the circuit court judgment and court of appeals decision affirming that verdict were the result of four distinct legal errors. S&N thus presents four issues for review: (1) Did the circuit court err in instructing the jury that a product can be deemed *782 defective and unreasonably dangerous based solely on consumer expectations about that product? (2) Did the circuit court err in instructing the jury that a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous regardless of whether the manufacturer of that product knew or could have known of the risk of harm the product presented to consumers? (3) Could the jury properly find that S&N's gloves were defective and unreasonably dangerous where the evidence introduced at trial showed that the gloves contained a substance that causes an allergic reaction in 5 to 17 percent of their consumers? (4) Did the circuit court err in admitting certain opinion evidence regarding the safety of S&N's gloves?
ś 4. Upon review of the issues presented by S&N, we conclude as follows. First, the circuit court did not err in instructing the jury that a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous based solely on consumer expectations about that product. Second, the circuit court did not err in instructing the jury that a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous regardless of whether the manufacturer of that product knew or could have known of the risk of harm the product presented to consumers. Third, the jury could properly find that because the evidence introduced at trial showed that S&N's gloves contained a substance which causes an allergic reaction in 5 to 17 percent of their consumers, those gloves were defective and unreasonably dangerous. And fourth, although the circuit court erred in admitting the opinion evidence at issue, this error was harmless and, therefore, does not warrant a new trial.
ś 5. In light of these conclusions, we hold that the jury verdict in this case was not the result of reversible error. Thus, we hold that the court of appeals correctly *783 affirmed the circuit court's entry of judgment on the verdict.
I
[1]
ś 6. On review, this court regards the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Thompson v. Village of Hales Corners, 115 Wis. 2d 289, 314, 340 N.W.2d 704 (1983). "This is especially true where, as here, the verdict has the approval of the [circuit] court." Id. In the case at hand, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Green. Hence, we review the evidence adduced at trial in the present case in the light most favorable to Green.
A
ś 7. Green is a health care worker. She began employment at St. Joseph's Hospital in Milwaukee in 1978 where, prior to the commencement of this action, she worked as a radiology technologist and, beginning in 1986, as a CT scan technologist. During the course of this employment, hospital rules required Green to wear protective gloves while attending patients. To comply with these rules, Green wore powdered[1] latex gloves manufactured by S&N. Initially, Green used one or two pairs of gloves per shift. However, upon her promotion to the CT department, this use began increasing and, by about 1987 or 1988, Green's job required her to don up to approximately forty pairs of gloves per shift.
ś 8. Prior to 1989, Green never had experienced allergies; however, in 1989 Green began suffering various *784 health problems. Early that year, Green's hands became red, cracked, and sore, and began peeling. In response to this condition, she applied hand lotion, changed the soap she used, changed the type of hand towels she used, and tried various other remedies. Nevertheless, the rash continued.
ś 9. By September 1989, Green's condition deteriorated. Her rash spread to her upper trunk and neck, and she began experiencing chronic cold-like symptoms such as a runny nose and watery eyes. Green's symptoms grew increasingly severe, eventually culminating in an acute shortness of breath, coughing, and tightening of the throat. As a result, Green spent significant time in the hospital: approximately one day in September 1989; approximately five days beginning in late March 1990; approximately five days in February 1991; and approximately three days beginning in late April 1991.
ś 10. After undergoing various treatments and tests, Green was diagnosed in May 1991 with latex allergy. This allergy has compelled Green to avoid contact with latex, thus causing her to change jobs and limit the items she purchases, things she eats, and activities in which she participates. Moreover, Green's latex allergy caused her to develop asthma, thereby further limiting her lifestyle.
B
ś 11. In 1994 Green commenced the present products liability action against S&N. Green alleged that the S&N gloves which she had used at St. Joseph's Hospital were defective in two respects: (1) the gloves contained excessive levels of allergy-causing latex proteins; and (2) the cornstarch with which S&N powdered its gloves increased the likelihood that persons would *785 inhale the latex proteins. Green conceded that the proteins in S&N's gloves naturally occur in the rubber-tree latex from which they are produced. Green also conceded that S&N did not add any proteins to its gloves. However, Green argued that although S&N could have significantly reduced the protein levels in and discontinued powdering its gloves by adjusting its production process, S&N nonetheless utilized a production process that maintained these defects in the gloves. These defects, Green alleged, created the unreasonable danger that S&N's gloves would cause consumers to develop latex allergy and suffer allergy-related conditions. Moreover, Green alleged that as a result of these unreasonably dangerous defects, S&N's gloves caused her to develop latex allergy and allergy-related conditions and, therefore, suffer injuries. Consequently, Green claimed, S&N should be held strictly liable for these injuries.
ś 12. At the subsequent trial on Green's claim, the parties presented in pertinent part the following evidence to the jury. Latex allergy is caused by exposure to latex proteins. Upon exposure to latex proteins, some persons' immune systems produce antibodies to expel those proteins. The likelihood that such a person's immune system will produce antibodies in response to latex proteins increases in relation to the person's exposure to the proteins. Once a person's immune system produces these antibodies, he or she is "sensitized" to latex. Subsequent exposure to latex then may cause that person to develop progressively worse allergic reactions including irreversible asthma and even anaphylaxis, a hypersensitivity which, upon exposure to even a small amount of latex proteins, may trigger a life-threatening allergic reaction *786 â anaphylactic shock.[2] However, at the time Green began experiencing her injuries, the health care community generally was unaware that persons could develop latex allergy.
ś 13. The primary cause of latex allergy is latex gloves and, for this reason, latex allergy disproportionately affects members of the health care profession. According to Green's medical experts, the vast majority of people with latex allergy â up to 90 percent â are health care workers. And while latex allergy is not common among the general population, Green's medical experts testified that it affects between 5 and 17 percent of all health care workers in the United States.[3]
ś 14. Green further presented evidence that high-protein, powdered latex gloves are more dangerous than low-protein, powderless gloves. For example, one of Green's medical experts cited a study in which researchers tested how latex-sensitive persons reacted to various protein levels in latex gloves. In this study, the researchers found that while 75 percent of the tested individuals reacted to high-protein gloves, only 7 percent reacted to low-protein gloves. Similarly, another of Green's medical experts read to the jury a statement developed by a joint subcommittee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI Statement), which provides in part:
*787 [L]atex allergy is the result of the exposure of susceptible individuals to latex rubber proteins. Medical devices, principally latex gloves, are the largest single source of exposure to these potent allergens. Exposure to [latex proteins] may be by direct contact with an offending device or by inhalation of allergen carried by cornstarch powder with which most powdered gloves are coated....
Allergic sensitization to constituent latex rubber proteins is linked to exposure to latex allergens in the vast majority of cases. Direct exposure to latex allergens results from either contact exposures to medical devices and latex gloves or from respiratory exposure to latex aeroallergen [i.e., aerosolized latex proteins] carried by donning glove powders.
...
[The] risks of acute allergic reactions and of occupational asthma can be reduced only by curtailing exposure to latex rubber proteins. We recommend that the following steps, which utilize currently available devices, be taken to reduce these risks:
...
Only low-allergen latex gloves should be purchased and used. This will reduce the occurrence of reactions among sensitized personnel and should reduce the rate of sensitization.
Only powder-free latex gloves should be purchased and used. This will reduce latex rubber aeroallergen levels and exposure.
American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, ACAAI Statement Concerning the Use of Powdered and Non-powdered Natural Rubber Latex Gloves (1997) (citations omitted), available at *788 http://allergy.mcg.edu/physicians/joint.html; see also Green, 2000 WI App 192, ś 25 (quoting ACAAI Statement in part). Based on such evidence, both of these experts opined that high-protein gloves are much more likely than low-protein gloves to cause latex sensitization and allergic reactions.[4] In addition, citing similar supporting evidence, these medical experts stated that powdered latex gloves, unlike powderless gloves, pose a substantial risk insofar as they allow latex proteins to become aerosolized and, thus, easily inhaled.[5] For these reasons, one of the experts specifically concluded that high-protein, powdered latex gloves are defective and unreasonably dangerous.
ś 15. Green's experts also testified that the S&N gloves which Green had used at St. Joseph's Hospital were high-protein, powdered latex gloves. One of Green's experts discussed a study conducted at Mayo Clinic in which researchers tested 30 brands of latex gloves. Of the 30 brands, only 3 had protein levels greater than the S&N gloves at issue. That witness similarly discussed another Mayo Clinic study in which researchers tested 13 brands of latex gloves. Of those brands, S&N's gloves contained more than 100 times the level of latex proteins than 10 of the 12 other brands. Further, several witnesses noted â and S&N did not dispute â that the S&N gloves which Green had used were powdered with cornstarch.
*789 ś 16. Green also presented evidence that the powder and high protein levels in S&N's gloves caused her latex allergy and allergy-related conditions. In the opinion of one testifying doctor, Green's exposure to S&N's gloves caused her to become sensitized to latex in 1989 and subsequently caused her to develop asthma and other allergy-related conditions. As the doctor further opined, the likelihood of Green having developed a latex allergy had she been exposed only to low-protein, powderless gloves would have been "very remote."
ś 17. Finally, Green presented evidence that S&N could have eliminated the alleged unreasonably dangerous defects in its latex gloves by altering its glove production process. S&N did not dispute that different production processes in use during the 1980s could have been used to manufacture lower-protein, powderless latex gloves.
ś 18. At the close of the case, the circuit court instructed the jury on the law surrounding Green's claim for strict liability. The court explained:
A manufacturer of a product who sells or places on the market a defective product which is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or consumer and which is expected and does reach the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold is regarded by law as responsible for harm caused by the product even though he or she has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product provided the product was being used for the purposes for which it was designed and intended to be used. A product is said to be defective when it is in a condition not contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer which is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or *790 consumer, and the defect arose out of design, manufacture or inspection while the article was in the control of the manufacturer. A defective product is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or consumer when it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer possessing the knowledge of the product's characteristics which were common to the community. A product is not defective if it is safe for normal use.
A manufacturer is not under a duty to manufacture a product which is absolutely free from all possible harm to every individual. It is the duty of the manufacturer not to place upon the market a defective product which is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or consumer.
The court then put this law into the context of Green's case:
Question No. 1 on the verdict form is "Were the latex gloves manufactured or sold by defendants [S&N] to which Linda Green was exposed, defective and unreasonably dangerous to a prospective user"?...
Now, ladies and gentlemen, before you can answer the first question yes..., you must be satisfied by the greater weight of the credible evidence to a reasonable certainty that 1. the product was in a defective condition; 2. the defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to people; 3. the defective condition of the product existed when the product was under the control of the manufacturer; and 4. the product reached the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.
There is no claim in this case that [S&N's] latex gloves failed to perform their intended purpose of protecting against the transmission of bloodborne *791 pathogens. You may find the latex gloves were dangerous beyond the reasonable contemplation by an ordinary user or consumer, even if they served their intended purpose.
Lack of knowledge on the part of [S&N] that proteins in natural rubber latex may sensitize and cause allergic reactions to some individuals is not a defense to the claims made by the plaintiff [Green] in this action. A manufacturer is responsible for harm caused by a defective and unreasonably dangerous product even if the manufacturer had no knowledge or could [not] have known of the risk of harm presented by the condition of the product.[6]
*792 ś 19. After receiving these instructions, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Green. The jury found that S&N's gloves were defective and unreasonably dangerous. It additionally found that this defective and unreasonably dangerous condition caused Green's injuries. Based on these findings, the jury awarded Green $1,000,000 in damages.
ś 20. S&N subsequently moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur. The circuit court denied S&N's motions and entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
ś 21. S&N appealed, arguing that the jury verdict and, thus, the circuit court judgment entered on that verdict resulted from several legal errors. However, the court of appeals rejected S&N's arguments and, in a unanimous opinion, affirmed the circuit court judgment.
ś 22. S&N then petitioned this court to review the court of appeals decision. We granted review.[7]
*793 II
[2]
ś 23. Strict products liability holds manufacturers and other sellers of products accountable for selling defective and unreasonably dangerous products that cause injuries to consumers. Since 1967, Wisconsin has adhered to the rule of strict products liability set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965):
Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer
(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his [or her] property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his [or her] property, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his [or her] product, and
(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
See Dippel v. Sciano, 37 Wis. 2d 443, 460, 155 N.W.2d 55 (1967). To prevail on a claim under this rule, a plaintiff must prove all of the following five elements:
(1) that the product was in defective condition when it left the possession or control of the seller,
*794 (2) that it was unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, (3) that the defect was a cause...of the plaintiff's injuries or damages, (4) that the seller engaged in the business of selling such product or, put negatively, that this is not an isolated or infrequent transaction not related to the principal business of the seller, and (5) that the product was one which the seller expected to and did reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition it was when he [or she] sold it.
ś 24. In the case at hand, S&N initially contends that the circuit court incorrectly instructed the jury regarding the first two elements of this standard. Specifically, S&N argues that the circuit court erroneously instructed the jury that: (1) a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous based solely on consumer expectations about that product; and (2) a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous regardless of whether the manufacturer of that product knew or could have known of the risk of harm the product presented to consumers. Accordingly, S&N asks us to review the circuit court's jury instructions.
[3, 4]
ś 25. On review, this court will affirm a circuit court's choice of jury instructions so long as the selected instructions fully and fairly inform the jury of the relevant law. Nowatske v. Osterloh, 198 Wis. 2d 419, 428-29, 543 N.W.2d 265 (1996). The issue of whether the jury instructions fully and fairly explained the relevant law is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. County of Kenosha v. C&S Mgmt., Inc., 223 Wis. 2d 373, 395, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999).
*795 A
ś 26. We first review whether the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that a product can be deemed defective and unreasonably dangerous based solely on consumer expectations about that product. As S&N indicates, the circuit court deviated from the pattern products liability jury instruction, Wis JI â Civil 3260, which provides in pertinent part that "[a] product is said to be defective when it does not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such product was sold and intended to be used," and instead instructed the jury that "[a] product is said to be defective when it is in a condition not contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer which is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user or consumer." (Emphasis added.) This "consumer-contemplation" instruction, S&N contends, defined "defect" by the same terms that the circuit court, in accordance with Wis JI â Civil 3260, defined "unreasonable danger": "[a] defective product is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer when it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer possessing the knowledge of the product's characteristics which were common to the community." (Emphasis added.) S&N asserts that the circuit court's jury instruction thus erroneously merged the elements of "defect" and "unreasonable danger" into a single element based solely on consumer contemplation.
1
ś 27. S&N maintains that the consumer-contemplation standard enunciated in the jury instructions is at odds with current Wisconsin law. According to S&N, this court has recognized that the consumer-contemplation *796 test is not appropriate in all strict products liability cases. S&N observes that in Sumnicht v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 121 Wis. 2d 338, 360 N.W.2d 2 (1984), we cited a list of five permissive factors that "may be beneficial to plaintiffs in proving their case[s]":
1) [C]onformity of defendant's design to the practices of other manufacturers in its industry at the time of manufacture; 2) the open and obvious nature of the alleged danger;...3) the extent of the claimant's use of the very product alleged to have caused the injury and the period of time involved in such use by the claimant and others prior to the injury without any harmful incident...; 4) the ability of the manufacturer to eliminate danger without impairing the product's usefulness or making it unduly expensive; and 5) the relative likelihood of injury resulting from the product's present design.
Id. at 372 (quoting Collins v. Ridge Tool Co., 520 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1975)). By approving of this list, S&N asserts, this court indicated that factors other than consumer expectations may be important to determining whether a product is defective and unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, S&N concludes, pursuant to Sumnicht, Wisconsin applies a "hybrid consumer expectation risk-benefit test."[8]
ś 28. Based on its reading of Sumnicht, S&N argues that the court of appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's deviation from the pattern jury instruction. S&N contends that had the circuit court instructed the jury about the defect element of Green's *797 claim according to the pattern jury instruction (i.e., in terms of whether the gloves were reasonably fit for their intended purpose), the jury could have considered the Sumnicht factors set out above. This, S&N asserts, would have allowed the jury to consider not only consumer expectations about S&N's gloves, but also facts such as: the gloves' effectiveness in preventing the spread of disease; the gloves' potential danger to only 5 to 17 percent of consumers; and S&N's inability to know of and, therefore, to eliminate the danger presented by the gloves' alleged design defects. But by instructing the jury solely in terms of consumer contemplation, S&N argues, the circuit court prevented the jury from considering the Sumnicht factors, including the risks and benefits of its gloves. S&N thus concludes that the circuit court's jury instruction erroneously incorporated a products liability standard that conflicts with Sumnicht.
ś 29. We disagree. In Vincer v. Esther Williams All-Aluminum Swimming Pool Co., 69 Wis. 2d 326, 230 N.W.2d 794 (1975), this court adopted Comment g to § 402A, which provides that a product is defective "where the product is, at the time it leaves the seller's hands, in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, which will be unreasonably dangerous to him [or her]." Id. at 330 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)) (emphasis added). Similarly, in the same case, this court adopted Comment i to § 402A, which provides in pertinent part that a defective product is unreasonably dangerous where it is "dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." Id. at 331 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)) (emphasis added). These *798 Comments provide that although defect and unreasonable danger are distinct elements to a claim in strict products liability, both elements are based on consumer expectations. See Sumnicht, 121 Wis. 2d at 367-70. Accordingly, based on our adoption of the definitions set out in these Comments, we concluded in Vincer:
[T]he test in Wisconsin of whether a product contains an unreasonably dangerous defect depends upon the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer concerning the characteristics of this type of product. If the average consumer would reasonably anticipate the dangerous condition of the product and fully appreciate the attendant risk of injury, it would not be unreasonably dangerous and defective. This is an objective test and is not dependent upon the knowledge of the particular injured consumer.
Vincer, 69 Wis. 2d at 332 (emphasis added). Indeed, since Vincer, we frequently have reiterated that Wisconsin applies a consumer-contemplation test in strict products liability cases. See, e.g., Beacon Bowl, Inc. v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co., 176 Wis. 2d 740, 792, 501 N.W.2d 788 (1993) ("Put another way, [a product] is defective and unreasonably dangerous when it is in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer and unreasonably dangerous to that consumer."); Sumnicht, 121 Wis. 2d at 369-70 (noting that the Vincer test is the law in Wisconsin); Ransome v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co., 87 Wis. 2d 605, 620-21, 275 N.W.2d 641 (1979) (quoting Vincer); Kozlowski v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 87 Wis. 2d 882, 893, 275 N.W.2d 915 (1979) (noting the Vincer court's adoption of Comments g and i); accord Netzel v. State Sand & Gravel Co., 51 Wis. 2d 1, 10-11, 186 N.W.2d 258 (1971) *799 (approving a jury instruction based on the consumer-contemplation standard).
ś 30. Sumnicht is consistent with this precedent. In Sumnicht, 121 Wis. 2d at 346, 348-49, we reviewed a strict products liability claim in which the plaintiff, Sumnicht, alleged that a design defect in the defendants' automobiles exacerbated the injuries that he sustained during a traffic accident. In examining this claim, we acknowledged that states differ regarding their approaches to products liability standards. As we explained:
Two separate approaches have emerged to evaluate design defect â a consumer-contemplation test and a danger-utility [i.e., risk-benefit] test....
Under the consumer-contemplation test,...a product is defectively dangerous if it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product's characteristics.
Under [the danger-utility test] approach, a product is defective as designed if, but only if, the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product. The theory underlying this approach is that virtually all products have both risks and benefits and that there is no way to go about evaluating design hazards intelligently without weighing danger against utility. There have been somewhat different ways of articulating this...test. But in essence, the danger-utility test directs attention of attorneys, trial judges, and juries to the necessity for weighing the danger-in-fact of a particular feature of a product against its utility.
Id. at 367-68 (quoting Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts § 99 at 698-99 (W. Page Keeton et al. eds., 5th ed. 1984)) (footnotes and quotations omitted)). We then *800 unequivocally held that "Wisconsin is committed to the consumer-contemplation test for determining whether a product is defective." Id. at 368.
ś 31. After reaffirming Wisconsin's legal standard for products liability, we examined what evidence was necessary to support Sumnicht's claim. The defendants argued that we could not sustain the jury verdict that their automobiles were defective and unreasonably dangerous because there was no proof of "an alternative, safer design, practicable under the circumstances." Id. at 370 (quotation omitted). In rejecting this argument, we explained that we have "refrained from adopting mandatory factors that must be weighed when determining if a product is defective and unreasonably dangerous." Id. at 371. We did, however, suggest that the set of five permissive factors cited by S&N "may be beneficial to plaintiffs in proving their case[s]." Id. at 372.
ś 32. But contrary to S&N's contentions, the Sumnicht factors did not change the nature of Wisconsin's consumer-contemplation test. In listing the Sumnicht factors, this court merely recognized that consumer expectations about products may vary depending on the nature of and consumer familiarity with those products. These factors are not supplements to the consumer-contemplation test, to be considered in addition to consumer expectations. Nor are these factors independent legal tests.
ś 33. Rather, the Sumnicht factors are considerations that may be relevant to determining whether the ordinary consumer could anticipate and, hence, contemplate an alleged unreasonably dangerous defect. For example, one of the Sumnicht factors is "[c]onformity of the defendant's design to the practices of other manufacturers in the industry at the time of *801 manufacture." Id. at 372. This factor does not allow a plaintiff to prove that a manufacturer's design is defective simply by proving that the design did not conform with other manufacturers' designs for similar products. Id. at 371 ("The question is not whether any other manufacturer has produced a safer design, but whether the specific product in question is defective and unreasonably dangerous."). Instead, this factor may allow a plaintiff to show that because the defendant manufacturer's design differed from other contemporary manufacturers' designs, an ordinary consumer familiar with the other manufacturers' designs may not be able to contemplate the potential danger presented by the relevant aspect of the defendant manufacturer's design. To further illustrate, another Sumnicht factor is "the ability of the manufacturer to eliminate danger without impairing the product's usefulness or making it unduly expensive." Id. at 372. This factor does not imply that in determining a manufacturer's liability, a trier of fact must balance the danger that the manufacturer's product presents to consumers with the benefits or cost-value of the product; Sumnicht expressly rejected such a risk-benefit analysis. Id. at 368; see also id. at 371 ("A product may be defective and unreasonably dangerous even though there are no alternative, safer designs available."). To the contrary, this factor allows parties to show that due to the inherent nature or cost of a particular product, the ordinary consumer may expect, for example, the product to include more or less safety devices.
[5]
ś 34. In sum, the Sumnicht factors must be understood and applied in light of the consumer-contemplation test. Instead of abrogating or redefining *802 Wisconsin's products liability standard, Sumnicht reiterated this state's devotion to the consumer-contemplation test: Wisconsin strict products liability law applies the consumer-contemplation test and only the consumer-contemplation test in all strict products liability cases.
[6]
ś 35. In the present case, the circuit court properly instructed the jury on this standard. As the court of appeals aptly noted, the circuit court's instruction was "essentially a clone of Comment g to § 402A, which was adopted by Vincer." Green, 2000 WI App 192, ś 16. And as explained above, in products liability cases, this state adheres solely to the consumer-contemplation test delineated in § 402A, adopted in Dippel, and further defined in Vincer. Therefore, we hold that based on our prior products liability caselaw, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in instructing the jury that it could find S&N's gloves to be defective and unreasonably dangerous based solely on consumer expectations about those gloves.
2
ś 36. S&N further contends that a number of policy considerations gravitate against this court's continued use of the consumer-contemplation test. S&N thus argues that this state should abandon its exclusive reliance on the consumer-contemplation test.
ś 37. According to S&N, consumers do not always have expectations regarding the relevant design aspects of a product. S&N suggests that while most consumers likely have expectations about how safely a product will perform its basic functions or serve its intend