design modification ... would reduce the risk.” Colter v. Barber-Greene Co., 403 Mass. 50, 525 N.E.2d 1305, 1310 (1988) (quoting Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 376 Mass. 874, 384 N.E.2d 1188, 1193 (1978) (emphasis added)); see also Simmons v. Monarch Mach. Tool Co., Inc., 413 Mass. 205, 596 N.E.2d 318, 322-23 (1992) (“We previously have rejected the notion, however, that liability for negligent design is limited to situations where the design defect was the causative factor of an accident. Rather, liability will also attach where the design defect enhances the injuries a person sustains in an otherwise foreseeable” way), abrogated on other grounds, Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 428 Mass. 1, 696 N.E.2d 909, 922 (1998); Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620, 377 N.E.2d 954, 956-58 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Lally v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 45
holding that under new york law a manufacturer is not obligated to design a product that is impossible to abuse holding that manufacturer may be liable for design defects that enhance rather than cause injuries holding that manufacturer is not liable for injuries to employee by product manufactured to employers plans and specifications provided the defect is not so obviously patently or glaringly dangerous that a manufacturer exercising ordinary care under the circumstances then existing would not follow them holding that a forest preserve will be liable for injuries only in the case of willful and wanton negligence that proximately causes such injuries holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer