About three weeks ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an important opinion in which it rejected adopting the language of the Restatement Third on Products Liability. The court decided to retain its analysis based on the principles and case law on Section 402A of the Restatement Second instead. This includes the choice of arguing/proving a design defect based on a consumer expectations analysis or a cost-benefits analysis. You can read the opinion here and the concurring opinion here. (Thanks to the TortsProf blog for the links.)
Max Kennerly, of Litigation and Trial, has a nice comment on the opinion here, and he provides links to shorter comments here, here and here.