Chapter 5 - Product Liability

Knowledgable User

if a particular danger (electric shock) is or should be commonly known by a particular user of the product (electricians), the manufacturers of electric equipment need not warn these users of the danger

Product Misuse

occurs when a product is used for a purpose for which it was not intended; today product misuse is recognized as a defense only when the particular use was not reasonably foreseeable

Statutes of Limitation

restrict the time within which an action may be brought

Comparative Negligence (fault)

showing the plaintiff's misuse of the product contributed to the injuries

Tolled

temporary suspension of the funning of a prescribed time period, such as a statute of limitations

Higher Standards

the idea behind holding defendants strictly liable for manufacturing defects is to encourage greater investment in product safety and quality control standards

Test for Design Defects

1. a reasonable alternative design was available 2. as a result of the defendant's failure to adopt the alternative design, the product was not reasonably safe

Greenman v Yuba Power Products Inc

California Supreme court stated that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufactures rather than the injured person who are powerless

Preemption

a defense that has been successfully raised by defendants in recent years; gov't regulations preempt claims for product liability; an injured party may not be able to sure a manufacturer of defective products that are subject to comprehensive federal regulatory schemes

Manufacturing Defect

a departure from design specification that results in products that are physically flawed, damaged, or incorrectly assembled

Due Care

a manufacturer must exercise due care in:1 1. designing the product 2. selecting materials 3. appropriate production process 4. assembling and testing the product 5. placing warnings to inform users of dangers or which an ordinary person may not be aware 6. inspecting and testing any purchased components used in the final product

Statutes of Repose

a statute that places outer time limits on product liability actions. such statutes cut off absolutely the right to bring an action after a specified period of time following some event other than the occurrence of injury

Strict Product Liability

assumptions 1. consumers should be protected against unsafe products 2. manufacturers and distributors should not escape liability for faulty products simply because they are not in privity of contract with the ultimate user of those products 3. manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of products are generally in a better position than consumers to bear the costs associated with injuries cause by their products - costs that they can ultimately pass on to all consumers in the form of higher prices

Commonly Known Dangers

certain products (e.g. knives and guns) are so commonly known that manufacturers need not warn users of those dangers

Risk Utility Analysis

determining whether the risk of harm from the product as designed outweighs its utility to the user and to the public

Unreasonable Dangerous Product

either: 1. the product is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer 2. a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it

Inadequate Warnings

foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings

Strict Product Liability

if these requirements are met, the manufacturer's liability to an injured party can be almost unlimited: 1. product in defective condition when sold 2. defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling the product 3. product must be unreasonable dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective condition 4. plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by using or consuming the product 5. defective condition must be the proximate cause of the jury or damage 6. the goods must have not been substantially changes from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained

Misrepresentation

misrepresentation on a label or ad is enough to show the intent to induce reliance

Prima Facie case

the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence for the claim to go forward

Privity of Contract

the relationship that exists between the promisor and the promisee of a contract

Market-Share Liability

theory- a court can hold each manufacturer responsible for a % of the plaintiff's damages that is equal to the % of its market share; is used only when the specific source of the harmful product is unidentifiable; many courts believe that is deviates too significantly from traditional legal principles

Obvious Risks

there is no duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known

Product Liability

those who make, sell, or lease goods can be held liable for physical harm or property damage caused by those goods to a consumer, user or bystander

Assumption of Risk

used as a defense in a product liability action; must show: 1. the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk created by the product defect 2. the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, even tho it was unreasonable to do so

Consumer Expectation Test

used to determine whether product's design was defective ; a product is reasonably dangerous when it fails to perform in the manner that would reasonably be expected by an ordinary consumer