## Facts

- Ronald J. Cavanaugh, a carpenter, was framing a house using a Skilsaw portable circular saw when he suffered serious foot injuries, including loss of a toe.
- After releasing the trigger, the saw’s motor stopped but the blade continued to rotate; when Cavanaugh set the saw on the subfloor about 18 inches away, it “traveled” across the floor and struck his right foot.
- The saw had a retractable lower blade guard intended to cover the blade when not cutting; it did not fully close during the incident.
- Skil contended Cavanaugh had wedged the guard open; Cavanaugh denied doing so, though evidence suggested sawdust or chips could jam the guard.
- Cavanaugh claimed the saw was defectively designed because it lacked a blade brake that would quickly stop the blade after the trigger was released.
- Plaintiff’s expert testified blade-brake technology existed at the time of manufacture and was used by competitors, and that a brake would have prevented the injury.
- Skil’s engineering witness testified Skil evaluated blade brakes and rejected them as potentially creating additional hazards.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a design defect and a feasible safer alternative design to submit the claim to the jury.
2. Whether the jury instruction on the Product Liability Act’s state-of-the-art defense improperly shifted or misstated the burden of proof.
3. Whether allowing limited evidence of post-accident use of the saw, not disclosed in discovery, required reversal.
4. Whether trial evidence and argument improperly framed strict liability as negligence based on Skil’s conduct.
5. Whether cross-examination of Skil’s expert lacked a good-faith factual basis and caused unfair prejudice.
6. Whether comparative negligence should be permitted as a defense in a design-defect action under the New Jersey Product Liability Act, contrary to existing precedent.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the $200,155.20 compensatory judgment for Cavanaugh and found no reversible error.
- The court held the design-defect claim was properly submitted to the jury based on evidence that a blade brake was a feasible alternative design that could have prevented the harm.
- The court upheld the state-of-the-art jury charge, concluding it correctly stated that the plaintiff bears the burden to prove defect while the manufacturer bears the burden to prove the affirmative defense.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting limited post-accident use evidence and no showing of actual prejudice to Skil.
- The court held evidence regarding Skil’s evaluation of blade brakes was admissible for risk-utility and feasibility, and the instructions properly focused the jury on the product rather than negligence.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the scope of cross-examination of Skil’s expert.
- The court declined to depart from precedent limiting comparative negligence in design-defect cases under the Product Liability Act, while recognizing misuse and assumption-of-risk defenses where supported by the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- In a Product Liability Act design-defect claim, the plaintiff must prove the product was not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for intended or reasonably foreseeable uses and that a practical, feasible alternative design would have reduced or prevented the harm.
- Conflicting evidence about the risks and benefits of an alternative design (including the manufacturer’s claimed safety concerns) ordinarily presents a jury question under risk-utility balancing.
- The state-of-the-art defense under the Product Liability Act is an affirmative defense; the manufacturer bears the burden of proving that, at the time the product left its control, no practical and feasible safer alternative design existed within the limits of existing technology.
- Trial courts have discretion in discovery and evidentiary management; non-disclosure does not require exclusion absent a showing of prejudice that cannot be cured by lesser measures.
- Evidence of a manufacturer’s evaluation of alternative safety features may be relevant to feasibility and risk-utility without converting strict liability into a negligence action, when the jury is properly instructed on the strict-liability framework.
- Comparative negligence is generally not a damages-reduction defense in Product Liability Act design-defect actions; plaintiff conduct is addressed through doctrines such as product misuse or voluntary assumption of a known risk when applicable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury finding that a portable circular saw was defectively designed for lacking a feasible blade brake, approved a state-of-the-art instruction placing the burden on the manufacturer, and reaffirmed that ordinary comparative negligence is generally unavailable as a defense in New Jersey Product Liability Act design-defect cases, apart from misuse or assumption-of-risk concepts.


Cavanaugh v. Skil Corp., 751 A.2d 564 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999)