Benjamin Riley was driving his Ford F-150 pickup truck near Ehrardt, South Carolina, when it collided with a vehicle driven by Andrew Carter. The driver's door of the truck opened in the collision, and Riley was ejected. First responders found Riley's body eighty-five feet away.

Riley's widow, Laura, filed a product liability suit in South Carolina state court against Ford, alleging that the design of the compression rod door-latch system of the Ford truck allowed the door to come open in the collision. The court issued a judgment in Laura's favor. Ford appealed.

A state intermediate appellate court affirmed. A reasonable alternative design for the door-latch system was shown by evidence that, among other things, Ford was aware of the rod system's safety problems and had conducted a risk-utility analysis of cable-linkage system concluding that it was a feasible, if not superior, alternative design.

What is the risk-utility test? Did the plaintiff's evidence of reasonable alternative design satisfy this test?

Suppose that the plaintiff had not had the evidence cited in the court's opinion. How then might the plaintiff have met the requirement to show a reasonable alternative design?