Burden of proof.

The plaintiffs appealed dismissal of their product liability suit at the close of their case. The panel affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs' expert rendered net opinions regarding two alleged defects. The plaintiffs' expert's qualifications were found to be minimal with respect to the type of machinery (a furnace) involved in the accident, and the expert offered no specifics as to the details and feasibility of alternative designs. The plaintiffs were found to have failed to meet their burden of proving that alternative designs were available, feasible and practical at the time of manufacture.

Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013