Chapter 10: Product Liability

assumption of risk doctrine

-->when a person voluntarily and unreasonably assumes the risk of a known danger, the manufacturer is not liable for any resulting injury

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

-MacPherson sued Buick because he purchased a product from the retailer (wooden tire car) with defective wooden spokes -Buick was negligent because they owed a duty to any person who could foreseeably be injured as a result of a defect in an automobile it manufactured = liable

strict product liability

-adopted by majority of states -merely prove the defendant sold the product in a defective or dangerous condition and defect caused his or her injury (no need to prove negligence)

primary theories to claim product liability

-breach of warrant -negligence -strict liability

rationale behind legal principle of strict liability

1. law should protect consumers against unsafe products 2.cost of injury should be borne by the parties best able to prevent, detect, eliminate, and insure against product defects 3. encourages manufacturers to go the extra mile to produce safer products and improve existing products 4. the law should give sellers an incentive to deal with reputable manufacturers

proof of defective product

1. the product was defective when it left the hands of the manufacturer or seller 2. the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous (if its characteristics do not meet consumers' expectations)

factors if the design of product is defective

1. usefulness and desirability of the product - its utility to the user and to the public as a whole 2. the safety aspects of the product-the likelihood that it will cause injury and the probable seriousness of the injury 3. the availability of a substitute product that would meet the same need and not be unsafe 4. the manufacturer's ability to estimate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it to expensive 5. the user's ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in use of the product 6. the user's anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product 7. feasibility of spreading the loss on the part of the manufacturer

successor liability rule

a corporation purchasing or acquiring the assets of another is liable for the acquired company's product liability and other debts only when: 1) there is a consolidation or merger of the two corporations 2) the acquirer expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such obligations 3) the transaction was wrongfully entered into to escape liability

manufacturing defect

a flaw in a product that occurs during production, such as a failure to meet the design specifications

subsequent remedial measures

a manufacturer's later fix of a dangerous condition or improvement of a design in a product that has been found to be inherently defective --> cannot prove negligence through introduction of it

failure to warn

a product must carry adequate warnings of the risks involved in its foreseeable use to avoid this charge 1. the defendant breached a duty to warn 2. the defendant's failure to warn was the proximate cause or legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries

unavoidably unsafe product

a product, such as a vaccine, that is generally beneficial but is known to have harmful side effects in some cases (still most provide proper warnings)

obvious risk

a risk that is readily evident --> if the use of a product carries obvious risk, the manufacturer will not be held liable for injuries that result from ignoring the risk

strict liability in tort

allows a person injured by an unreasonably dangerous product to recover damages from the manufacturer or seller of the product even in the absence of a contract or negligent conduct on the part of the manufacturer or seller

express warranty

an affirmation made by the seller relating to the quality of the goods sold

reasonable alternative design

any claim of design defect must be support by showing this, and proving that such a reasonable alternative was, or reasonably could have been, available at the time of sale or distribution

risk-utility balancing test

courts balance the risks associated with the product with its utility to the user and the public

implied warranty

created by law and guarantees the merchantability of the goods sold, and in some circumstances, their fitness for a particular purpose

component parts manufacturer's liability

frequently sued, generally liable --> but not for the defective design specifications for the entire product as long as the component is not itself defective and the component manufacturer did not participate in the design of the final product

retailer's liability

held strictly liable for defects in the products they sell

wholesaler's liability

held strictly liable for defects in the products they sell

comparative fault doctrine

in which the plaintiff's damages may be reduced by the degree to which his or her own negligence (such as an unforseeable misuse of a product) contributed to the injury

sellers

not usually held strictly liable --> used goods sellers are

design defect

occurs when a product manufactured according to specification is nonetheless, "unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property" due to its inadequate design or a poor choice of materials

elements of a strict liability claim

plaintiff must prove that 1. the plaintiff or their property was harmed by the product 2. the injury was caused by a defect in the product 3. the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant and did not substantially change along the way

breach of warranty

question of whether the quality, characteristics, and safety of the product were consistent with the implied or express representations made by the seller --> whenever the product fails to meet the standards the seller represented to the buyer at the time of purchase

indemnity

reimbursement

privity of contract

requirement in which an injured person must be in a contractual relationship with the seller to recover

products

strict liability in tort only applies to them, not services/intangibles

how to prove negligence in products case?

the injured party must show that the defendent did not use reasonable care in designing or manufacturing tis product or in providing adequate warnings

product liability

the legal liability manufacturers and sellers have for defective products that cause injury to purchasers, users, or bystanders, or their property --> liability extends to anyone in the chain of distribution including manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers

manufacturer's liability

will be held strictly liable for its defective products regardless of how remote the manufacturer is from the final user of the product