design of the allegedly defective product.” Mullins v. Ethicon, Inc., 117 F.Supp.3d 810, 821 (S.D.W. Va. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); Keffer v. Wyeth, 791 F.Supp.2d 539, 547 (S.D.W. Va. 2011). While it is true that West Virginia law on the matter is not crystal clear, we agree with Ford that Morningstar “can only be read to require the production of evidence on reasonable alternative design, to gauge what ‘should have been.’ ” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2, Reporter’s Note (1998). Although Morningstar does not use the phrase “alternative design,” a plaintiff in a design case, for all practical purposes, must identify an alternative design in order to establish the “state of the art.” See Church v. V.R. Wesson, 182 W.Va. 37, 385 S.E.2d 393, 396 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Sero testified that safer, proven design
holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job holding that the trial court properly dismissed the entire multicount complaint because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case as to any of the counts holding plaintiff in a defective design case failed to establish a prima facie case because plaintiffs expert identified an alternative design that was not feasible at the time of manufacture and thus failed to prove that defendants design was not state of the art holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position