Final answer:
The statement about the need for plaintiffs to prove only that a product is "unreasonably dangerous" in strict liability cases is true. Additionally, for design defects, the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable alternative design was feasible. An example is a manufacturer liable for a known brake system defect resulting in injuries.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement is true: to establish breach of duty for strict liability, the plaintiff (π) needs to prove only that the product is so defective as to be "unreasonably dangerous." When it comes to design defects, the plaintiff typically must show that there was a reasonable alternative design, which implies that a safer modification or alternative was economically feasible.
Counter Example Situation 3 is relevant here, as it showcases a scenario where a manufacturer knowingly proceeds with the sale of vehicles with a defective brake system. This action results in liability due to the manufacturer's prior knowledge of the defect and the likelihood of resulting harm.
Legal standards for defects and liability, such as those elucidated in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., guide the process of determining when protection is due to public figures versus private individuals. Actual malice is a significant factor when considering statements made against public officials.