Like a ladder rung that snaps under normal weight or a power tool guard that fails during ordinary use, some product failures are so basic that an average buyer would say the item did not perform as safely as expected.

The consumer expectation test is a rule used in product liability cases to judge whether a product was defective. Under this test, a product may be considered unreasonably dangerous if it failed to meet the safety expectations that an ordinary consumer would have when using it in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. The focus is not mainly on engineering tradeoffs or manufacturer design choices. It is on what a typical user would expect from the product's safety performance.

In practice, the test can matter because it may let an injured person prove a design defect without highly technical proof when the danger is obvious to ordinary users. That can affect whether a case survives early dismissal, what expert testimony is needed, and how a jury evaluates the product. It often appears alongside other standards, especially the risk-utility test.

In Connecticut, product defect claims are governed by the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-572m to 52-572q. The Connecticut Supreme Court clarified the role of this test in Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2016), holding that ordinary consumer expectations alone are generally not the universal standard for design defect claims, though they may still matter in limited, straightforward cases. That distinction can directly shape an injury claim's proof requirements and settlement value.