In Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 321 Conn. 172 (Conn. 2016) (No. 19232), the Connecticut Supreme Court accepted certification of the following question from the Second Circuit in a smoker’s strict liability suit:  “Does [comment (i) to §402A] preclude a suit premised on strict product liability against a cigarette manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully manipulated cigarettes to increase daily consumption without regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but in the absence of evidence of adulteration or contamination?”  In the course of answering the question “No,” the court made sweeping changes to Connecticut’s strict liability law.  Specifically, the court adopted as the primary test for strict product liability cases the “modified consumer expectation test,” which incorporates an analysis of risk and utility such that liability can be based even upon open and obvious danger where that danger could have been avoided by a feasible alternative design that is reasonable in terms of cost and utility.  The court rejected the argument that the modified consumer expectation test should be limited to products too complex for the “ordinary consumer to understand, and reserved the ordinary consumer expectation test” only for “cases in which the product failed to meet the “ordinary consumer’s minimum safety expectations such as res ispa type cases.”  Further, the court held that the Restatement (Second) §402A comment (i)’s reference to “good tobacco” is not a per se bar to the plaintiff’s recovery under the modified consumer expectation test.