John J. Roberts, Both as an Individual and as Guardian Ad Litem for the Minor Plaintiffs James A. Roberts and Sherry…

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment, holding that the phrase “without impairing the usefulness of the product” means a significant diminution of the product’s intended use and that the plaintiff must prove the defendant could have eliminated the danger without removing an inherent characteristic; the court also held that the trial court should have instructed the jury on this exception, making the feasibility issue a factual question for the jury, and remanded for a new trial.