Vincent Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Summary

The court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts for Connecticut design-defect claims, retaining the Restatement (Second) framework while clarifying its consumer-expectation and risk-utility tests. It held that consumer expectations under comment (i) do not govern a viable negligence-based product-liability claim, although every product-liability claim must still establish a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. It also held that statutory punitive damages under the Product Liability Act are not limited to common-law litigation expenses and may be awarded up to twice compensatory damages.