SB 160 amends Utah’s product liability law governing claims that a product was defectively designed or otherwise unreasonably dangerous. The bill keeps the existing rule that a product must have had a defect or defective condition at the time it was sold and preserves the rebuttable presumption of no defect when the product’s design or manufacturing methods complied with applicable government standards.
The main change is in the design-defect portion of the statute. The bill states that a claimant may present evidence that a safer and feasible alternative design existed, but a claimant is not required to prove the availability of such an alternative design in order to prevail on a defective design claim. The bill applies to civil actions for personal injury, death, or property damage and takes effect May 7, 2025.
Impact
This bill amends Utah Code section 78B-6-703, narrowing the extent to which plaintiffs in product liability cases must rely on proof of a safer alternative design. It would affect manufacturers, sellers, insurers, and litigants in design-defect lawsuits by clarifying that alternative-design evidence is permissible but not an essential element of liability. The bill does not appropriate money and does not change the general framework for rebuttable presumptions tied to compliance with government standards.
Sentiment
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a targeted clarification of plaintiff proof requirements in product liability litigation rather than a broad policy overhaul. The available record does not show support or opposition, but the bill’s effect suggests it may be viewed favorably by plaintiffs’ advocates and more cautiously by manufacturers and defense interests.
Contention
The likely point of contention is whether plaintiffs should be required to prove a safer and feasible alternative design in defective-design cases. Supporters would view the bill as preventing an overly burdensome evidentiary hurdle and preserving access to remedies for injured consumers, while opponents may argue that removing the requirement makes it easier to impose liability on manufacturers and could increase litigation exposure. Another possible issue is how the change interacts with existing presumptions favoring products that comply with government standards.