In Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co. (59 NY2d 102, 108, 450 NE2d 204, 463 NYS2d 398 [1983]), speaking of a claim of strict product liability, the Court said: "The plaintiff . . . is under an obligation to present evidence that the product, as designed, was not reasona-bly safe because there was a substantial likelihood of harm and it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner." While this is a negligence, not a strict liability, case, similar requirements apply--specifically, plaintiffs here had to prove that "it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner." This means, to use again the language of Voss, the plaintiffs must show "the potential for designing . . . the product so that it is safer but remains functional" (id. at 109). In Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co., the plaintiff severely injured his hand while working with a circular saw, even though the protective guard functioned properly. In holding that the evidence established a prima facie case of strict products liability based on the defectively designed product, the court pointed to the opinion of the plaintiff's expert that it would have been simple to design the saw so that it would be safer by extending the protective guard to conform with minimum safety standards and good design standards. The Court of Appeals has held that: a "defectively designed product is one which, at the time it leaves the seller's hands, is in a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use; that is one whose utility does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce". (Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., supra at 479, 426 NYS2d 717, . . .) Strict products liability for design defect thus differs from a cause of action for a negligently designed product in that the plaintiff is not required to prove that the manufacturer acted unreasonably in designing the product. The focus shifts from the conduct of the manufacturer to whether the product, as designed, was not reasonably safe. . A manufacturer is held liable regardless of his lack of actual knowledge of the condition of the product because he is in the superior position to discover any design defects and alter the design before making the product available to the public. Liability attaches when the product, as designed, presents an unreasonable risk of harm to the user. In order to establish a prima facie case in strict products liability for design defects, the plaintiff must show that the manufacturer breached its duty to market safe products when it marketed a product designed so that it was not rea-sonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff, of course, is under an obligation to present evidence that the product, as designed, was not reasonably safe because there was a substantial likelihood of harm and it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner. The defendant manufacturer, on the other hand, may present evidence in opposition seeking to show that the product is a safe product - that is, one whose utility outweighs its risks when the product has been designed so that the risks are reduced to the greatest extent possible while retaining the product's inherent usefulness at an acceptable cost. The Court also held: Therefore, we conclude that the proper standard to be applied should be whether the product as designed was "not reasonably safe" -- that is, whether it is a product which, if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner. . It will be for the jury to decide whether a product was not reasonably safe in light of all the evidence presented by both the plaintiff and defendant. (Voss v Black & Decker, supra at 108.)