An animal that is not itself sick is not a product for purposes of a design defect products liability case. Here, a rat that Petco sold as a pet had a bacterial infection that did not produce a disease affecting the rat but one that rarely, but in this case, fatally, produces a disease in humans. This decision holds that the rat was not a “product” for purposes of a design defect products liability claim and therefore the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury as to the consumer expectation test of design defect liability. Although unnecessary to the decision, the majority opinion also concludes that the consumer expectation test would not apply anyway as the ordinary consumer would not know the risks and benefits of trying to “design”–i.e., raise–bacteria-free rats. Finally, the majority opinion concludes that the failure to instruct on consumer expectations was harmless given the jury’s verdicts in Petco’s favor on negligence and defective warning theory of products liability.