Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corp. — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

Justice Ecker concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with much of the court's analysis but disagreeing that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence for a jury instruction on reasonable alternative design. She reasoned that the trial evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiffs, could support findings that the TVT was feasible, safer than the Obtryx, and capable of reducing the risks that caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court's judgment remained affirmed, but this opinion would have reversed because the jury should have been permitted to consider the alternative-design theory.