Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Summary

The concurrence agrees with the majority's negative answer to whether § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts applies to a negligent-design claim under Connecticut's Product Liability Act, but would reach that result by applying a risk-utility test rather than the majority's analysis. It also agrees that § 52-240b adopts a punitive-damages calculation different from the common-law attorney-fee limitation because the statutory scheme demonstrates legislative intent to depart from the common law. Justice Zarella, joined by Justice Espinosa, would have made the risk-utility standard explicit and rejected any stand-alone negligence theory for design-defect claims.