What is the burden of proving alternative designs to a claim for damages against a manufacturer for a defective design?

We begin with Baker v. Chrysler Corp. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 710, 127 Cal.Rptr. 745. There the court stated: "Requiring an injured plaintiff who [221 Cal.App.3d 1331] seeks damages against a manufacturer on the basis of strict liability in tort for a defective design to show that alternative designs for the product could reasonably have been developed does not enlarge plaintiff's burden of proof. An injured plaintiff has always had the burden to prove the existence of the defect. The reasonableness of alternative designs, where a design defect is claimed, is part of that burden." (Id., at p. 716, 127 Cal.Rptr. 745.) Thus, held the court, the burden was upon the injured plaintiff to establish that reasonable alternative designs are possible.