The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the consumer expectation test in this design defect products liability case. The plaintiff was injured when his forklift, designed for use on uneven surfaces, overturned, and he fell out of the cab and suffered severe injuries. The forklift had a roll-over cage and two-point safety belts as protection against roll-over injuries. Plaintiff claimed that it should also have had cab doors and more than two-point safety belts. The defense expert testified to added risks that those supposed safety features would have created. This was a battle of experts in which the consumer would not have had the requisite expertise to judge whether the design compromise the defendant made was appropriate or not, so the trial court correctly rejected the consumer expectation instruction that plaintiff proposed.