[1280]*1280BROWN, Justice.
Appellant was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident in Casper, Wyoming. In a lawsuit that followed appellant asserted that the City of Casper was negligent in the maintenance of its streets, and that Suzuki Motor Company had negligently designed the motorcycle involved and was also liable on the theory of strict liability. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of appellees.
We will reverse.
The issues are:
1. “Whether the district court erred in concluding that Casper was not negligent as a matter of law.
2. “Whether the district court erred in concluding that Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd. and U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation were not negligent as a matter of law.
3. “Whether the district court erred in failing to apply the strict products liability standard set forth in § 402A of the Restatement of Torts to the plaintiffs claim against defendants Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd. and U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation.”
On July 8, 1977, appellant Michael O’Donnell was driving Darryl Davis’ motorcycle, with permission, on Mariposa Boulevard in Casper, Wyoming. Appellee, City of Casper, had resurfaced Mariposa Boulevard about a month before, and gravel left over from the project remained on the street.1 As a result of vehicular travel on Mariposa, ridges and piles of gravel accumulated. As appellant proceeded along the boulevard about five to ten miles per hour, Donald Walford suddenly pulled his automobile from a parking place on the street and into the path of appellant. In order to avoid hitting the Walford vehicle appellant veered to the left, and then had to correct back to the right to avoid hitting vehicles parked on the other side of the street. In making those two quick manuevers appellant rode into loose gravel which caused him to “fishtail” and run into a larger accumulation of gravel. Appellant felt his choices were to lay the motorcycle down, or run into a parked automobile on the opposite side of the gravel. He chose the latter alternative. After hitting the parked vehicle appellant rolled across its hood, falling to the ground, and was engulfed in flames.
Suit was brought against appellee City of Casper (City hereinafter) for negligent failure to maintain its streets. Suit was also filed against appellees Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd. and U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation (Suzuki hereinafter) for breach of warranty and strict liability in the design, manufacture and sale of its motorcycles. Later, negligent design of the motorcycle was added as an issue.
We have established certain basic principles that are applicable in reviewing the propriety of granting a summary judgment. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that is not frequently granted, and as a general rule is not appropriate in negligence actions. Keller v. Anderson, Wyo., 554 P.2d 1253 (1976). When a summary judgment is granted by the trial court we must review the entire record in order to determine whether summary judgment was proper. Wyoming Insurance Department v. Sierra Life Insurance Company, Wyo., 599 P.2d 1360 (1979). This court has the same duty as the trial court; assuming the record is complete, we have the same material before us as the trial court. Seay v. Vialpando, Wyo., 567 P.2d 285 (1977); and Minnehome Financial Company v. Pauli, Wyo., 565 P.2d 835 (1977).
An appellee has a heavy burden in defending a summary judgment because appellate courts must look at the record from the viewpoint most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving him all favorable inferences to be drawn from the facts contained in affidavits, exhibits, depositions and testimony. Dubus v. Dresser Industries, Wyo., 649 P.2d 198 (1982); and [1281]*1281Bancroft v. Jagusch, Wyo., 611 P.2d 819 (1980). Summary judgment is proper only when it is clear that no issue of material fact is involved and inquiry into the facts is not desirable to clarify application of law. Stephens v. Sheridan Public Employees Federal Credit Union, Wyo., 594 P.2d 473 (1979). See also Rule 56, Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the party seeking the summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and as a matter of law the movant is entitled to judgment. Gilliland v. Steinhoefel, Wyo., 521 P.2d 1350 (1974).
I
A municipal corporation in Wyoming owes a duty to the traveling public to keep its streets and sidewalks in a reasonable safe condition and in reasonably good repair. Bieber v. City of Newcastle, 242 F.Supp. 457 (D.Wyo.1965).
“ * * * The most generally accepted rule in this country is that municipalities, which have full and complete control over the streets within their corporate limits * *• * are liable for damages for injuries sustained in consequence of their failure to use reasonable care in keeping them in a reasonably safe condition for public travel * * *.” Opitz v. Town of City of Newcastle, 35 Wyo. 358, 362, 249 P. 799, 800 (1926).
The trial court in the case before us was of the opinion that the City had no duty to the traveling public if the dangerous condition of the street was known and obvious. The court, referring to the obvious danger rule, said:
“ * * * [Wjhenever the danger is obvious or at least as well known to the plaintiff as the defendant, there is no duty to remove the danger or warn of its existence.”
We will address three reasons why the rule announced by the trial court is inappropriate: 1) cases previously decided by this court can be distinguished from the case before us; 2) the rule was developed before comparative negligence was adopted in Wyoming; and 3) the rule recited in prior cases was overbroad and not disposi-tive of those cases.
The history of the obvious danger rule in Wyoming reveals that its nature is unclear and its application inconsistent.2 In one context the obvious danger rule has had the effect of negating any duty owed by a defendant. In another context the rule is a species of contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
A majority of earlier cases discuss the obvious danger rule, treating it as a factor in determining whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent or had assumed the risk of the danger. Loney v. Laramie Auto Co., 36 Wyo. 339, 255 P. 350 (1927); Chicago and Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Ott, 33 Wyo. 200, 237 P. 238 (1925); In Carney Coal Co. v. Benedict, 22 Wyo. 362, 140 P. 1013 (1914). In 1966, in the context of when a directed verdict would be upheld, we determined that a defendant’s duty could be negated by an obvious danger. McKee v. Pacific Power and Light Company, Wyo., 417 P.2d 426 (1966). In two later cases we said that an obvious danger is a factor to be considered in determining contributory negligence. Continental Motors Corporation v. Joly, Wyo., 483 P.2d 244 (1971); and Berry v. Iowa Mid-West Land and Livestock Company, Wyo., 424 P.2d 409 (1967).
Before the advent of comparative negligence it did not make any difference whether an obvious danger was viewed as negating a defendant’s duty, or whether it constituted contributory negligence or assumption of risk. The result was the same; contributory negligence or assumption of risk barred a plaintiff’s recovery.
Since comparative negligence was adopted it makes a great difference how an obvious danger is viewed. If an obvious danger negates a duty, a defendant cannot be negligent. On the other hand, if a duty [1282]*1282is not negated, then the obvious danger is a factor to be considered by the trier of fact in comparing plaintiffs and defendant’s negligence. This court has not been consistent in its application of the obvious danger rule since comparative negligence.3
In Bluejacket v. Carney, Wyo., 550 P.2d 494 (1976), plaintiff was a guest at defendant’s resort cabin. Plaintiff knew that the path there was icy, unlit, and rough, but used it anyway, and fell down. Plaintiff brought suit for damages for his injuries against the owner. Summary judgment for defendant was affirmed. The court found that the obvious danger rule relieved defendant of a duty to remove the ice and snow from the path. Justice Rose in his dissenting opinion observed that the obvious danger rule was not always an absolute bar to plaintiff's recovery, and should be a factor in determining plaintiff’s percent of negligence.
In Brittain v. Booth, Wyo., 601 P.2d 532 (1979), plaintiff was injured when the sides of an excavation in which he was working fell on him. The majority held that plaintiff assumed the risk of such accidents, and reasoned that since under comparative negligence, plaintiff’s assumption of risk is to be compared to defendant’s negligence, the jury verdict must stand finding plaintiff contributorily negligent. The court acknowledged that the pit was obviously dangerous because the sides were neither shored nor sloped, and thus likely to cave in. The obvious danger rule, however, was not invoked to remove defendant’s duty. Rather, the obviousness went to the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Justice Rose dissented, but he, too, consistent with his position in Bluejacket, would have evaluated plaintiff’s behavior in light of the nature of the condition. The entire court thus treated the obvious danger rule as an expression of contributory negligence rather than negation of duty.
We have never come to grips with the impact of comparative negligence on the obvious danger rule. We have not made it clear whether the obvious danger rule negates a duty of the defendant or whether the plaintiff assumes the risk of a known and obvious danger. If the plaintiff assumes the risk, then the obvious danger rule is a form of contributory negligence which should be compared with the defendant’s negligence by the trier of fact.
The obvious danger rule announced by the trial court, which was dispositive of the case against the City, was reiterated recently in Sherman v. Platte County, Wyo., 642 P.2d 787, 789 (1982):
“ * * * First there is a rule that no duty exists which requires either the removal of an obvious danger or a warning of its existence. Second is the rule that no duty exists to remove the natural accumulation of snow and ice. * * *” (Emphasis added.)
In support of these two rules we cited Johnson v. Hawkins, Wyo., 622 P.2d 941 (1981); Bluejacket v. Carney, supra, and earlier cases. See also, Norman v. City of Gillette, Wyo., 658 P.2d 697 (1983). It is noted, however, that although the first rule was recited in Sherman, Johnson and Bluejacket, they were decided on the second rule. Therefore, the first rule was not the law of the case in those decisions.
Sherman and the cases just mentioned involved slip and fall situations resulting from a natural accumulation of ice and snow. In Sherman we said the known and obvious danger rule applied because there was no duty to remove the natural accumulation of ice and snow. The trial court in the case before us extended the rule of the slip and fall cases beyond a hazardous condition resulting from natural causes to a situation where the known and obvious danger was created in the first instance by the City. Although we have said that a city does not have a duty to correct an obvious and known danger resulting from natural causes, we have never said that a city does not have a duty to [1283]*1283correct an obvious danger of its own making. The City had a duty to maintain the streets. A rule of law which provides that one who creates a known and obvious danger has no duty to correct it because it.is known and obvious is not rational.
An extension of that idea would be that the greater and more obvious the danger, the lesser the duty on the part of those otherwise responsible. Such a rule would not discourage a city from creating or allowing the continued existence of a great and obvious danger. It is not logical to hold that if the city digs an immense hole in the road that can be seen a block away, that its duty to keep the roads safe vanishes. On the other hand, if the city digs a small hole not easy to see, its duty remains. In other words, the bigger the hole the lesser the duty. This is not the intent of the known and obvious danger rule.
The obvious danger rule, precluding recovery, has been narrowly limited. In Cervelli v. Graves, Wyo., 661 P.2d 1032, 1039 (1983), the trial court instructed the jury, “ ‘There is no liability for injuries from dangers that are obvious, reasonably apparent, or as well known to the person injured as they are to any other parties.’ ” We held that this statement was erroneous.
“The instruction is basically the type of instruction given in a slip and fall case dealing with the known and obvious danger of natural accumulation of ice and snow. We have, on numerous occasions upheld the known and obvious danger rule in appropriate slip and fall cases. [Citations.] Those cases (slip and fall cases) all dealt with suits brought by the injured party against the owner of the premises where the fall occurred. The thrust of our known and obvious danger rule decisions has been that the danger presented by the accumulations of snow and ice does not generally create liability for a possessor of property because of their natural character. We have never, however, applied that rule to an automobile collision case where the parties involved were not in control of the premises where the accident occurred.
“Here the trial court incorrectly applied the known and obvious danger rule to a negligence action between two drivers on an icy highway. The rule does not apply in such a case. To apply such a rule to the case at bar abrogates Wyoming’s comparative negligence statute. * * * ” Id., at 1039.
According to Cervelli the known and obvious danger rule is not applicable in all negligence cases, or even all ice and snow cases. Cervelli does not preclude other negligence cases from being exempt from the obvious danger rule.
The rationale of Cervelli is applicable here. In the slip and fall cases the danger presented by the accumulation of ice and snow does not generally create liability for the possessor of property. This is because the accumulation is natural. Here, however, the accumulation of gravel on the road was not natural, but was placed there and allowed to accumulate into ridges and piles by the City.
The broad rule derived from Sherman and the cases cited therein and used by the trial court4 to decide this case was adopted by this court before the advent of the comparative negligence statute. Some of the language employed before comparative negligence has spilled over into cases decided by this court after comparative negligence was adopted. The rule cited by the trial court in this case was compatible with the pre-comparative negligence doctrine that contributory negligence was a complete bar to recovery. An inflexible rule that a known and obvious danger is an absolute bar to recovery is not compatible with the doctrine of comparative negligence.
The City may have been negligent by not properly maintaining the streets, and the negligence of the City, if any, should be compared with the negligence of appellant. Because appellant knew of the [1284]*1284obviously dangerous condition of the road he may very well have been negligent, but that is for the trier of fact to determine, and the relative degree of negligence is all important under comparative negligence. Gone are the days when a scintilla of negligence by the plaintiff will bar recovery.
The trier of fact, in considering the negligence of plaintiff, may properly consider the known and obvious danger of the street in determining the percent of plaintiff's negligence. However, the known and obvious danger does not result in the disappearance of the City’s duty or automatically absolve it from any liability.
The City points out in detail appellant’s own negligence and that the condition of the road was known to him. It may be that upon trial the trier of fact will find appellant’s negligence equal to or exceeded by that of the City. However, appellant has the right to submit the issue of negligence to the trier of fact and have his negligence compared to that of the City.
We hold that the known and obvious danger rule does not negate the City’s duty to keep its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition and in reasonably good repair, and that the obvious danger of the streets may be considered by the trier of fact to determine plaintiff’s percentage of negligence.
We believe there was a genuine issue of material fact created on the question of the condition of the streets at the time and place of the accident. In his deposition appellant testified:
“A I was having a very difficult time controlling the bike in the very deep gravel between the two streets here. I had — I could not turn the bike because to do that would have meant laying the bike down. There was not enough traction to do so.
“ * * * And the paths of traffic had forced the excess gravel into piles that were in the center of the street between the lanes of traffic that were actually in the middle of the car lane where the two tires would make a track. And between those two tire tracks would be a mound of gravel. And also between these two intersections there is an area there approximately triangularly shaped that did not receive an awful lot of gravel. And all of the excess gravel seemed to be finding its way into an area, and it was very deep and uneven and very difficult to — to drive through.”
Appellant’s father described the condition of the street thusly:
“3. At the time of the accident, July 8, 1977, and for a period of three to four weeks prior to said date, the material deposited on the street by the City of Casper had been moved by the traffic and become piled or windrowed, primarily on the north side of Mariposa Street, to a depth of approximately three to four inches.”
Furthermore, Professor Judson Mathias, Ph.D., teaching at Arizona State University, stated in his affidavit that the City was remiss in allowing the gravel to windrow to the extent it did. Furnished with a copy of the police report of the accident, the complaint filed, appellant’s affidavit, and other relevant information, Professor Mathias concluded:
“6. Affiant has checked with various agencies, including City of Tempe, and it is affiant’s opinion that the maintenance of the street upon which plaintiff was travelling at the time of the accident was faulty and created a dangerous condition and was not up to the standards of the industry in the following respects:
“a) The City of Casper allowed gravel to windrow and remain in a windrowed condition for a period in excess of four (4) weeks;
“b) The City of Casper failed to provide signs warning vehicular traffic of the hazard;
“c) The City of Casper failed to spread windrowed material evenly across the street at regular intervals in an effort to avoid the hazardous conditions existing at the time of this occurrence.”
[1285]*1285To the contrary is the deposition of Wilbur Kiegley, safety officer for the City of Casper, who visited the scene of the accident two days after it occurred, and stated:
“A. Well, toward the right and left sides of the street there is always a certain amount of windrowing of loose chips that haven’t adhered to the pavement. It was a very moderate amount of loose chips on the center of the street. I didn’t observe any unusual amounts in the intersection. That is a T intersection there.
“Q. Okay. And the windrowing, the pile of chips, how deep were they?
“A. At best less than two inches.
“Q. And that was right at the area of the accident?
“A. No, not necessarily so. I would say that they were closer to the curb than the area of the accident.
“Q. How about the windrowing in the middle of the street? How deep was that?
“A. Oh, very nil, I would say. Just a scattering of it there.”
We believe the above testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact and therefore summary judgment was improper. Stephens v. Sheridan Public Employees Federal Credit Union, supra. We have previously defined material fact as one which, if proved, would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. Shrum v. Zeltwanger, Wyo., 559 P.2d 1384 (1977).
II
The motorcycle driven by appellant at the time of the accident was a 1969 TS 250, manufactured by Suzuki. The fuel tank, filler neck and gas cap, component parts of the motorcycle claimed to be defectively designed, were not recovered after the accident, and therefore, were never available for identification, inspection and testing.
A manufacturer owes a duty of care to those who use its product. The manufacturer is required to exercise reasonable care in the planning, design, and manufacturing of a product in order to insure that it is reasonably safe to use. Caterpillar Tractor Company v. Donahue, Wyo., 674 P.2d 1276 (1983); and Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry Company, Wyo., 527 P.2d 832 (1974).
A plaintiff alleging a design defect must, as a preliminary matter, establish a standard of conduct or duty.
“ * * * Before any duty, or any standard of conduct, may be set, there must first be proof of facts which give rise to it; and once the standard is fixed, there must be proof that the actor has departed from it * * Prosser and Keaton, Law of Torts § 37, pp. 235-236 (5th ed. 1984).
Until the standard of conduct or duty is established, there is no question of a conflict of material facts. Wells v. Jeep Corporation, Wyo., 532 P.2d 595 (1975); Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry Company, supra. A determination of the standard of conduct or duty is a question to be decided as a matter of law. Caterpillar Tractor Company v. Donahue, supra.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Suzuki filed the affidavit of A.F. Wilson, its national product liability manager. According to Wilson, the gas cap manufactured and designed for the motorcycle involved in this case is known as a bayonet cap and will not come off unless turned manually:
“ * * * The gas cap which was manufactured and designed for the gas tank for the TS 250 involved in the O’Donnell accident is what is known in the motorcycle industry as a bayonet cap, which if put on the tank properly will not come off except by being turned manually to the open position by hand until released by the interworkings of the cap, neck and tank; and the only manner in which it can be otherwise forced off once properly engaged is by destruction of the tank neck and cap at the point where the cap is engaged to the tank. This latter assertion is based upon affiant’s technical training, knowledge and experience [1286]*1286with bayonet caps on this and other models of motorcycles, regardless of whether made by Suzuki or other manufacturers. Affiant is very familiar with the industry standards pertaining to the design and manufacture of motorcycle gas caps, filler necks and gas tanks and can state that within the motorcycle industry, this bayonet cap system was considered by motorcycle designers and manufacturers to be, at the time of the manufacture of the motorcycle in the O’Donnell accident, the safest system for this type of motorcycle.”
The affidavit states further that Suzuki’s records reflect only one other claim involving the disengagement of this type of gas cap during an accident. The thrust of this affidavit is that Suzuki did not breach its duty to design a reasonably safe product or to warn users of latent dangers in its fuel systems.
In opposition to Suzuki’s motion for summary judgment, appellant filed the affidavit of Dr. Harry Peterson, professor of mechanical engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. Based on his studies and testing of motorcycle design, manufacture, and crashworthiness from 1968 to the present, Dr. Peterson testified as to the known need for a fuel system safer than the one installed on 1969 Suzuki 250 motorcycles:
“3. The fuel tank on the Suzuki motorcycle involved in the instant case is constructed of thin sheet metal and crushes easily and deforms upon minimal impact. It is positioned above the frame, in front of the rider with the filler hole and gasoline filler cap on top of the tank. The gasoline tank is vented to the atmosphere through holes in the gas cap, directly in front of the operator, and between the operator’s knees. Because of the manner and place of venting, gasoline and gasoline vapors will in all probability be discharged in an accident or impact directly in front of and onto .the operator. When the gas tank, filled to its capacity with gasoline (100% full), is struck, dented, and its volume decreased, very high pressures are created and are relieved by gasoline squirting out the breather holes in the cap, by the cap blowing off, or by the rupture of the tank, thus creating an extreme hazard and danger of fire.
“4. In an accident, impact or upset, gasoline is discharged from the fuel system of this type motorcycle into the atmosphere approximately 60% of the instances. Fire results when the gasoline vapor mixes with the atmosphere in proper proportions and ignition occurs from the filament of a light broken in the accident, torn wiring, sparks, or some other source. * * *
“5. Experimental crashes involving motorcycles of this type show that the problem of fuel system integrity is a serious one. Gas tank caps open or come off, and the fuel tanks may rupture during impáct. Fuel sprays on the rider as he moves over the cycle. * * * ”
Dr. Peterson’s affidavit further stated that technology was available in 1969 for the design and manufacture of stronger fuel containers, vented away from the rider. Available technology, according to the affiant, permitted the design of a fuel tank with an air space or filler neck that would prevent filling to capacity. He further testified that modification kits would have been a feasible means of correcting existing fuel systems.
The foregoing statements represent the opinions of an expert in the field of motorcycle design and crashworthiness indicating that a need existed for a system capable of containing fuel on impact and that technology available in 1969 afforded a feasible means of incorporating such a system into new and existing motorcycles. These opinions find support, in tests conducted and reported by the expert affiant and in information accumulated through his study of motorcycle design, manufacture, and crashworthiness for fifteen years. Therefore, these opinions may not properly be characterized as “categorical assertions of ultimate facts without supporting evidence” which, we have held, cannot defeat [1287]*1287a motion for summary judgment on the issue of defective product design. Wells v. Jeep Corporation, supra; and Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry Company, supra. Opinion testimony of the nature presented here, offered by a qualified expert in opposition to the manufacturer’s evidence that no defect exists, presents a material question of fact for trial and is entitled to evaluation by the fact finder. Hughes v. American Jawa, Ltd., 529 F.2d 21 (8th Cir.1976).
Appellant’s expert testified further that as a result of tests conducted in Japan, the United States, and England, Suzuki had knowledge of the fire hazards associated with motorcycle accidents and failed to warn users against filling the fuel tank to capacity. This testimony presents a question of fact as to the extent of Suzuki’s knowledge concerning the integrity of its fuel system in the event of an accident. This factual matter bears on the issue of whether Suzuki breached its duty, recognized by this court in Parker v. Heasler Plumbing & Heating Company, Wyo., 388 P.2d 516 (1964), to warn users of known, latent dangers.
In its brief, Suzuki suggests problems of proof because the alleged defective parts, that is, the fuel tank, filler neck, and gas cap were never found. However, neither the affidavit of Suzuki’s expert nor any other evidence in support of summary judgment refutes the allegation in the complaint that the fuel system at issue was a Suzuki product. Accordingly, the contention in the pleadings concerning Suzuki’s responsibility for the allegedly defective motorcycle parts is deemed admitted for purposes of this appeal, and appellant had no obligation to produce any evidence on this point in order to withstand the motion for summary judgment.
To prevail at trial, of course, appellant will have to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the fuel system was defectively designed by Suzuki and that the defect in design caused or enhanced his injuries. Anton v. Ford Motor Company, 400 F.Supp. 1270 (S.C.Ohio E.D.1975). See also, Ford Motor Company v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga.App. 331, 319 S.E.2d 470 (1984). However, the allegedly defective product need not necessarily be introduced into evidence in order to establish grounds for recovery. Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration Corporation, Wyo., 665 P.2d 452 (1983); and Colorado Serum Company v. Arp, Wyo., 504 P.2d 801 (1972). Circumstantial evidence can establish that a manufacturer’s defective product caused a mishap and associated injuries. Ford Motor Company v. Arguello, Wyo., 382 P.2d 886 (1963).
In awarding summary judgment, the trial court concluded that appellant had failed to adequately counter Suzuki’s evidence that it exercised reasonable care in designing the fuel system installed on the motorcycle operated by appellant at the time of the accident. The court concluded that appellant had not established the use by other manufacturers of a safer design or the feasibility of a safer design not yet in use, pursuant to our holdings in Wells v. Jeep Corporation, supra, and Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry Company, supra.
Since the summary judgment in this case was granted, we have decided Caterpillar Tractor Company v. Donahue, supra. In that case, the issue was whether Caterpillar was liable for failing to install a roll-over protection device on its front-end loaders in 1966. We affirmed the jury’s finding of negligence on the part of Caterpillar, and followed the principles of the Maxted case, stating:
“In Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry, supra, we discussed what factors should be considered by the fact finder in deciding whether a manufacturer exercised reasonable care in not incorporating particular safety features on a product. One of the more significant factors there was whether other manufacturers of the same product had included the features. But, as we said, that consideration was merely a factor; it was not determinative on the issue of negligence. * * * ” Id., at 1281.
[1288]*1288It is the law in Wyoming that evidence of other manufacturers’ use of certain safety features on a product is a significant, but not determinative, factor to be considered on the issue of negligence.
We have previously held that a manufacturer has a duty to design and construct his product reasonably and prudently to protect against injuries in case of collision. Chrysler Corporation v. Todorovich, Wyo., 580 P.2d 1123 (1978). And in Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry Company, supra, at 835, 836, it was said:
“ ‘In addition to liability for negligent construction, a manufacturer is required to exercise ordinary care in planning or designing his product so that it is reasonably safe for the purposes for which it is intended. * * * ’ 1 Frumer & Friedman, Products Liability, § 7.01, p. 104.46 (1973).
“ ‘In the determination of whether or not a manufacturer has in fact exercised the care and skill of an expert, several matters are to be considered. One of the most significant factors is whether others in the field are using the same design, or a safer design. Other factors to be considered are whether a safer design not yet in use is known to be feasible, and whether in the case of a new product there has been adequate testing. [Citations.]’ ”
In the summary judgment proceedings of this case, appellant had a right to stand on his pleadings insofar as the alleged defective fuel system was a Suzuki product. With respect to the contention that Suzuki breached its duty to design a reasonably safe product, appellant established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Appellant has asserted as an alternative cause of action strict products liability as set out, in pertinent part, in the Restatement of Torts:
“(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if
“(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and “(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.” Restatement (Second) Torts 2d § 402A, pp. 347-348 (1965).
The summary judgment in the district court was based upon appellant’s cause of action for negligent design. Therefore, we decline to address strict products liability for the first time in this court.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.