Strict Product Liability

Risk/utility test

A design is defective if its risks outweigh its utility; could the defendant have removed the danger without serious adverse impact on the product's utility and price.

Who are the proper defendants?

All persons engaged in the commercial distribution of products are liable.

Example of manufacturing defects

Assembly line errors in production - cases in which negligence also would lie, bolstered by res ipsa loquitur. Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., glass peanut butter jar that shattered must have contained a defect.

Representations set forth by a manufacturer whose falsehood cannot be readily detected by a buyer may be relied on by the buyer regardless of an absence of privity of contract.

Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. (Windshield glass; express warranty)

Proximate cause

Established if the injury to the plaintiff and the type, extent, and manner of the plaintiff's injury were the foreseeable result of the defendant's negligent conduct under the circumstances.

A manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by abnormal or unintended use of its product, only if such use is not reasonably foreseeable.

Ford Motor Company v. Matthews (started the truck while standing next to it)

Plaintiffs may prove a manufacturing defect through the use of circumstantial evidence, so long as a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the accident was caused by the defect rather than other possibilities.

Friedman v. General Motors (transmission started while in drive) Proof

Individuals injured by products with design or manufacturing defects may bring suit under strict liability, regardless of a failure to give timely notice to the manufacturer for a breach of warranty.

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (Power tool threw a piece of wood; Strict Liability)

Negligence

Harm must be foreseeable and the defendant's conduct must be unreasonable.

Design defects

Inadequate testing and safety checks. The product was in the condition intended by the manufacturer or supplier, but was designed in such a way that it presented an undue risk of harm in normal use.

What torts may products liability be based on?

Intentional, negligence, strict liability, and breach of an expressed or implied warranty.

If a product is reasonably expected to be dangerous if negligently made and the product is known to be used by those other than the original purchaser in the normal course of business, a duty of care exists.

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (Collapsed wheel; Negligence)

Economic losses

Most courts do not allow recovery in tort for purely economic losses.

Based on risk utility analysis, a defendant may be liable for a design defect even if his product complied with the existing level of technological advances at the time of design.

O'Brien v. Muskin Corp (used vinyl instead of rubber latex in the pool)

Personal injuries or death

Pain and suffering caused by injury from the defective product are recoverable, together with all damages consequential thereto - medical expenses, loss of income, etc. If the injury results in death, a wrongful death action will lie.

Kinds of Damages recoverable

Personal injuries or death Property damage Economic losses

Strict products liability will not be applied to the seller of previously used products.

Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt (children hit by used car)

What are the 7 elements of strict products liability?

Proper Plaintiff Proper defendant Is the product defective Actual cause Proximate Cause Damages Defenses

What are the four approaches to design defects?

Risk/utility test Consumer expectation test 402A Reasonable alternative design test Combined approach test

A manufacturer cannot be held strictly liable for the danger caused by one of its products, if it does not cause the defect in the product.

Rix v. General Motors; (truck was altered by dealer after sale)

Causation

The plaintiff must show that the injuries were caused by some defect in the product that existed at the time it was marketed by the defendant.

Manufacturing defects

The product is not in the condition that the manufacturer intended at the time it left his control; i.e., the product does not conform to the manufacturer's own production standards. Liability for this type of defect is strict.

What are 7 determinative factors in the risk/utility test?

Usefulness. Type and purpose of the product. Style, attractiveness, and marketability. Number and severity of injuries. Cost of design changes to alleviate the problem. User's anticipated awareness of inherent dangers. Feasibility of spreading the loss by adjustments in the price.

Breach of an expressed or implied warranty.

Warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability, which is also strict in that it does not require fault.

Intentional tort

a battery

The principle of comparative negligence can be applied in strict products liability cases to reduce a plaintiff's recovery.

Daly v. General Motors (decedent thrown from his car, no seat belt, doors not locked, intoxicated)

Strict liability

Defective product that caused the injury.

An express warranty which limits the manufacturer's liability to replace defective parts is against public policy.

Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motor, Inc. (Something wrong with steering; Implied warranty)

Reasonable alternative design test

A design is defective if a reasonable alternative design would have reduced the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product. This means that if the greater safety provided by an alternative design outweighs its disadvantages (e.g., more costly, less attractive) the defendant's design is defective.

What are the three kinds of product defects?

A product may be defective in manufacturer, in design, or in the sufficiency of the warning accompanying it.

Who are the proper plaintiff?

All persons who are endangered by the defective product.

Knowledge or knowability is a component of strict liability for failure to warn.

Anderson v. Owens-Corning (Asbestos from working close to fiberglass) Warnings defect.

Actual cause

Cause in fact; it is sufficient that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

Defenses to Strict Tort Liability

Contributory negligence Comparative fault Assumption of the risk Disclaimers Statute of limitations Preemption

Hospitals are not subject to strict liability for a defective product provided to a patient during treatment when the hospital is a provider of services rather than a seller of a product.

Hector v. Cedars-Sinai (implantation of defective pacemaker)

Property damage

Physical damage to other property is recoverable in almost all states.

Consumer expectation test

Plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected and the manufacturer must have been able to foresee the dangers of the product.

Is the product defective?

Plaintiff must show that the breach of Defendant's duty resulted in a defective product.

When a defective product causes injury who may be liable to the injured person?

The manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, and retailer who sold it on a number of distinct legal theories.