This kind of reasoning drives us nuts. The mere fact that a product failed and caused an injury should never be sufficient to establish that it was defective. Strict liability is not absolute liability, and product manufacturers are not insurers of their products against known risks, which are inherent in every medical product. Moreover, the "it broke so it must be defective" reasoning highlights the Achilles heel of our tort system: If a medical device is used to treat 10,000 patients, and it fails in one, those are exceptionally good odds. The jury trial, however, revolves around the misfortunes of the one and leaves the jury with an incomplete and skewed view of the product’s benefits and risks. The Coxorder refers to a doctor’s testimony without elaborating, so perhaps there is more to the evidence than meets the eye. From our angle, this resembles a design defect claim that should not have gone to the jury.