1. Why does the court apply both the risk-utility test and the consumer expectation test in this case?
2. How should the manufacturer alter its behavior in response to this case?
3. If the manufacturer has to alter its product as a result of this case, it may end up producing a product that is less attractive to potential consumers. Does the court view this as a problem? Why or why not?

This is a suit for personal injury damages based on product liability. To make a case, the plaintiffs had to show that the product was not reasonably safe as designed. Ultimately our disposition here turns on whether the plaintiffs’ showing at trial was sufficient to send the question of the product’s (a snow tube) safety to the jury. The plaintiffs submit that the snow tube went too fast, had no means for the rider to control it, and turned the rider into a fixed backward position. The product distributor responds essentially that this is what the tube was designed to do and therefore the product performed as designed and was not defective, as a matter of law. We conclude that the plaintiffs’ showing was sufficient to submit the question whether the snow tube was not reasonably safe as designed to the jury. And we therefore affirm the judgment for the plaintiffs.