While plaintiff alleges that the MRI machine caused [his] injury . . . and expedited his death, plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating how the alleged defect–whether it was in the design or in the manufacturing of the MRI machine–caused [his] injuries. . . . [t]he relevant question is not whether the [the product] caused [the plaintiff] pain; the issue is whether the alleged defective design or manufacturing of the [the product] caused [the plaintiff] pain. . . . Plaintiff’s complaint contains no factual allegations regarding this issue of causation.
Nor does plaintiff offer evidence that the medical literature he cites represented an industry standard, an authoritative voluntary organization’s design guidelines, or design criteria set by legislation or governmental regulation.
that plaintiff has not shown that a prosthesis made from cobalt chromium is a better alternative to titanium. It is not sufficient that the alternative design would have reduced or prevented the harm suffered by the plaintiff if it would also introduce into the product other dangers of equal or greater magnitude.
Because plaintiff has not offered evidence that the risks of defendant’s prosthesis outweighed its benefits, the court concludes that no reasonable jury could find in plaintiff’s favor on his strict products liability claim based on a design defect theory.