How Do You Prove a Car Could Have Been Designed Safer in Wisconsin?

Proving a Safer Car Design Was Possible Under Wisconsin Law

Key Takeaways: To prove a car could have been designed safer in Wisconsin, an injured person generally must show under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(a) that the vehicle’s foreseeable risks could have been reduced or avoided by a reasonable alternative design, and that leaving it out made the car not reasonably safe. For actions filed on or after February 1, 2011, § 895.047 added this reasonable alternative design requirement, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp. (2022 WI 109) held that it did not replace the older consumer contemplation test; instead, the consumer contemplation standard remains a required element under § 895.047(1)(b) alongside the reasonable alternative design requirement, so plaintiffs generally must satisfy both. Courts often weigh how likely and how severe the harm is against whether a safer design was technically and economically possible at the time of manufacture. These claims usually depend on qualified engineering testimony that meets Wisconsin’s reliability standard, the preserved vehicle, event data recorder downloads, software logs, and internal manufacturer documents. Plaintiffs must also watch the three-year filing deadline under Wis. Stat. § 893.54 for personal injury and general wrongful death claims (or the two-year deadline under § 893.54(2m) for wrongful death actions arising from a motor vehicle accident), the 15-year statute of repose under § 895.047(5), and expect defenses such as comparative fault, misuse, alteration, and compliance with federal or state standards.

To prove a car could have been designed safer in Wisconsin, an injured person generally must show that a reasonable alternative design could have reduced or avoided the vehicle’s foreseeable risks, and that the manufacturer’s failure to use it made the car not reasonably safe. Wisconsin codified this standard in Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(a). In practice, proving it usually means engineering analysis, qualified witnesses, and careful preservation of vehicle evidence.

If a defective car design injured you or someone you love, Kent | Pincin can help you understand your options. Call 608.999.4954 or contact us now to talk about what happened.

What Counts as a Design Defect in a Wisconsin Car Defect Claim?

A design defect is generally a flaw in the plan for an entire product line, not a one-off mistake on the assembly line. If a whole model has a roof that crushes too easily, a fuel tank placed where it ruptures in rear impacts, or driver-assistance software that fails to detect pedestrians reliably, every vehicle built to that design may carry the same risk. That sets design defect claims apart from manufacturing defect claims, where one vehicle departs from its intended specifications.

Wisconsin’s product liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.047, sets out the elements a plaintiff must prove in a strict liability claim. Under § 895.047(1), the claimant must establish that:

The product was defective because of a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or inadequate instructions or warnings
The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to people or property
The defect existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control
The product reached the user without substantial change in condition
The defect was a cause of the claimant’s damages

For a broader look at each of these product liability elements, note that a strong design argument can still fail if causation or condition at sale isn’t established.

How Wisconsin’s Test Has Changed

Wisconsin courts once relied mostly on the "consumer expectation" (or consumer contemplation) test. Under that approach, a product was unreasonably dangerous if it was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect. Wisconsin adopted strict products liability in Dippel v. Sciano (1967), and later decisions, including Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc. (2001), reaffirmed that test.

2011 Wisconsin Act 2 created Wis. Stat. § 895.047, effective for actions filed on or after February 1, 2011, adding a requirement that plaintiffs prove a reasonable alternative design under § 895.047(1)(a). However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp. (2022 WI 109) held that this did not eliminate the consumer contemplation test. The court concluded that the legislature instead codified the consumer contemplation standard as a separate required element under § 895.047(1)(b), so design defect claims now generally require proof of both a reasonable alternative design and that the product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect, rather than a risk-utility test standing alone. Older cases applying only the consumer contemplation test, or assuming it was eliminated, may not reflect current law.

How Reasonable Alternative Design Wisconsin Law Works in Practice

Under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(a), a product is defective in design if its foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the manufacturer’s adoption of a reasonable alternative design, and leaving that design out makes the product not reasonably safe. The plaintiff carries this burden. Saying "the car should have been safer" isn’t enough. You typically need to identify a specific, workable design the manufacturer could have used. Under § 895.047(1)(b), as clarified in Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., a plaintiff generally must also show the product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect.

The Risk-Utility Balancing Test

The statute doesn’t list balancing factors, but Wisconsin courts may use a risk-utility analysis, drawing on sources like the Restatement (Third) of Torts, that weighs how likely and how severe the harm is against how feasible and costly a safer alternative would be. A Wisconsin appellate opinion addressing product liability discusses this framework and the evidence needed to prove an alternative design. Courts may consider factors like these:

Factor	What Courts May Examine
Probability of harm	How often the design caused or contributed to injuries
Severity of harm	Whether the risk involved catastrophic or fatal injuries
Technical feasibility	Whether the safer design was achievable with engineering available at the time
Economic feasibility	Whether the alternative was reasonably affordable to produce
Product utility	Whether the change would preserve the vehicle’s function and usefulness

Feasibility at the Time of Manufacture

Timing matters a great deal in a reasonable alternative design Wisconsin claim. The alternative generally must have been technologically and economically feasible when the vehicle was manufactured, not years later. If the technology only appeared after production, the claim may face significant obstacles.

The alternative design also generally must reduce the risk without seriously impairing the vehicle’s usefulness. Courts generally won’t treat a design as reasonable if it would make the car impractical, unaffordable, or less safe in other ways.

Building Alternative Design Proof With Evidence

In most cases, alternative design proof depends on testimony from qualified engineering witnesses. Since 2011, that testimony must meet the Daubert reliability standard in Wis. Stat. § 907.02. These witnesses may analyze crash dynamics, compare competitor vehicles, review industry safety standards, and sometimes test prototype modifications.

Evidence That Often Matters

The strongest design defect cases usually combine physical, digital, and documentary evidence. Common sources include:

The vehicle itself, kept in its post-crash condition
Event data recorder ("black box") downloads showing speed, braking, and airbag deployment
Sensor, camera, and software logs for vehicles with driver-assistance or autonomous features
Software update and recall histories
Comparable vehicles from other manufacturers that used safer designs
Internal manufacturer documents obtained through discovery

💡 Pro Tip: Don’t let an insurer salvage, repair, or crush the vehicle before your legal team inspects it. A written preservation request may help protect it.

Special Challenges for Semi-Autonomous and Self-Driving Vehicles

When advanced driver-assistance or self-driving technology is involved, the "design" being challenged may be software rather than steel. An alternative design could be a better object-detection algorithm, stronger driver-monitoring systems, or more conservative operating limits. Whether software counts as a "product" under strict liability is still developing, so these claims may also rely on negligence theories. A reasonable alternative design Wisconsin lawyer can help identify who may share responsibility and what digital data must be preserved quickly, since some systems overwrite logs.

Deadlines and Limits on a Defective Car Design Claim

Wisconsin law sets time limits for filing injury lawsuits, and missing them can bar a claim entirely. Under Wis. Stat. § 893.54(1m), personal injury actions and general wrongful death actions generally must be started within three years. However, under Wis. Stat. § 893.54(2m), a wrongful death action arising from an accident involving a motor vehicle must generally be commenced within two years.

Exceptions such as the discovery rule may apply in limited circumstances, but courts often interpret them narrowly. Wisconsin also has a statute of repose under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(5): a manufacturer generally isn’t liable if the product was manufactured more than 15 years before the claim accrued. Exceptions apply, such as when the manufacturer specifically represented a longer useful life or the injury involves a latent disease. A claim against a government entity can carry separate notice requirements, such as the 120-day notice under Wis. Stat. § 893.80.

If a defective design causes a fatal crash, Wis. Stat. § 895.04 generally governs who may bring a wrongful death action. In general, the deceased’s personal representative or the person entitled to the recovery may file, with recovery going first to the surviving spouse or domestic partner, then to lineal heirs, and then to other next of kin.

💡 Pro Tip: Keep a written timeline of the crash, your medical treatment, and every conversation with insurers or the manufacturer.

Common Obstacles in Madison Product Liability Cases

Manufacturers often argue that the driver, not the design, caused the crash. Under Wisconsin’s comparative fault rule, an injured person’s damages are reduced by their share of fault and barred if their fault is greater than the defendant’s. Wis. Stat. § 895.047(3) also provides specific defenses. Misuse, alteration, or modification of the product can reduce damages. Compliance with relevant federal or state standards creates a rebuttable presumption that the product isn’t defective. Recovery may be barred if the claimant’s intoxication was more than 50 percent of the cause of their injuries.

Another common challenge is cost. Engineering analysis, testing, and reconstruction take substantial resources, and manufacturers usually defend these cases aggressively. Every case depends on its specific facts, and no result can be guaranteed.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Do I need an engineer’s testimony to prove a design defect in Wisconsin?

In most cases, yes. Courts generally expect qualified technical testimony to show that a safer, feasible alternative design existed when the vehicle was made. That testimony must also meet the reliability standard in Wis. Stat. § 907.02.

2. Does Wisconsin still use the consumer expectation test?

Yes. Even for actions filed on or after February 1, 2011, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp. (2022 WI 109) that the consumer contemplation test remains a required element under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(b), alongside the reasonable alternative design requirement in § 895.047(1)(a).

3. Can I bring a claim if my car was involved in a recall?

Possibly. A recall may help show a design problem, but it doesn’t prove liability by itself. Under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(4), evidence of remedial measures taken after the sale generally can’t be used to prove a design defect, though exceptions apply.

4. What if the defect involved driver-assistance software?

Software design flaws may support a design defect or negligence claim, depending on the circumstances. Preserving digital logs quickly is often critical.

5. How long do I have to file a Wisconsin car defect claim?

Personal injury claims and general wrongful death claims are generally subject to a three-year limit under Wis. Stat. § 893.54(1m), but a wrongful death claim arising from a motor vehicle accident is generally subject to a two-year limit under § 893.54(2m). Exceptions, government notice requirements, and the 15-year repose period under § 895.047(5) may affect your case.

Taking the Next Step After a Defective Vehicle Injury

Proving a car could have been designed safer in Wisconsin generally requires showing a reasonable alternative design, feasible at the time of manufacture, that would have reduced the risk without harming the vehicle’s usefulness. These claims depend on strong engineering evidence, preserved vehicle data, and close attention to deadlines and defenses.

If you were hurt in a crash you believe involved a defective car design, Kent | Pincin is ready to review your situation. Call 608.999.4954 or schedule a consultation today to learn more about your rights.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every case is unique, and results may vary. Consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.