was not altered.”). Rather, we believe that the “burden-shifting” approach advanced in Southmre strikes the appropriate balance by maintaining plaintiffs burden of persuasion, but eliminating the possibility that defendant may prevail on the bare allegation that some unidentifiable change occurred in the product. Cf. Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 734 F.2d 495, 501 (10th Cir.1984) (ruling that the mere “conclusory statement” that substantial change had occurred was insufficient to create a jury question). This balance, we note, comports with the underlying philosophy of strict products liability, leaving the ultimate burden of proof with the party in control of the product when the substantial change allegedly would have occurred, see Stewart, 52 Haw. at 75, 470 P.2d at 243 (<HOLDING>), but still advancing the public interest in
recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability recognizing strict product liability actions