6 Product Liability Flashcards
Question 6663 (Mixed MBE PQ S1)
BabyCo, a manufacturer of baby gear, designed a baby bouncer that allowed infants to jump up and down without parental assistance. The baby bouncer could be attached to a doorframe with a plastic clamp, which was connected to the baby seat via a spring and safety cord. BabyCo designed the baby bouncer to safely withstand a maximum weight of 20 pounds, but if an infant exceeded that weight, there was a risk that the clamp could slip off of the doorframe and severely injure the infant. For a slightly higher cost, BabyCo could have used a metal clamp that withstood a maximum weight of 40 pounds, but they opted for the cheaper plastic clamp so that they could undercut their competitors. BabyCo attached a warning label to the bouncer stating the weight limit and that if the limit was exceeded, the clamp could slip off the doorframe and injure the infant. A mother purchased a baby bouncer manufactured according to BabyCo’s specifications for her nine-month-old infant who weighed 25 pounds. She read the warning label but chose to ignore the weight limit. After a few uses, the clamp slipped off the doorframe, and the infant suffered a concussion and broken leg from the fall. The mother brought a strict products liability action against BabyCo. The jurisdiction is a traditional contributory-negligence jurisdiction.
Who will prevail?
A. BabyCo, because the mother chose to ignore the weight limit on the warning label.
B. BabyCo, because they put a warning label on the baby bouncer regarding the weight limit.
C. The mother, because the weight limit was the result of a manufacturing defect.
D. The mother, because the baby bouncer manufactured by BabyCo was defectively designed.
A. BabyCo, because the mother chose to ignore the weight limit on the warning label.
Answer choice A is correct. Voluntary and knowing assumption of the risk is a complete bar to recovery in contributory-negligence jurisdictions. Assumption of the risk is a subjective standard. The plaintiff must be aware of the danger and knowingly expose himself to it. In this case, BabyCo attached a warning label to the bouncer stating the weight limit and that if the limit was exceeded, the clamp could slip off the doorframe and injure the infant. Despite reading this warning, the mother chose to ignore it. In placing her baby who exceeded the weight limit in the bouncer, the mother voluntary and knowingly assumed the risk that the clamp could slip off the doorframe. Therefore, the mother likely cannot recover in this traditional contributory-negligence jurisdiction.
Answer choice D is incorrect. Under strict liability, the manufacturer of a defective product may be liable for any harm to persons or property caused by such product. A product is defective when, at the time of the sale or distribution, it contains a design defect—which is the case here. Courts apply the risk-utility test when determining if a design defect exists, and analyze whether the risks posed by a product outweigh its benefits. The plaintiff must prove that a reasonable alternative design that was economically feasible was available to the defendant, and the failure to use that design rendered the product unreasonably unsafe. Here, BabyCo could have used metal clamps for a slightly higher cost, and their failure to incorporate them into the design rendered the baby bouncer unreasonably unsafe. However, the mother’s decision to place her baby in the bouncer with full knowledge of the product defect will result in BabyCo prevailing in the lawsuit.
An experienced construction company purchased sand in bulk from a distributor. The construction company mixed the sand with water and cement to make concrete. The distributor knew that an improper ratio of sand, water, and cement would result in defective concrete, but the distributor played no role in determining the ratio used by the construction company in mixing the concrete.
The construction company used the concrete to form supporting columns for a building. A year later, the building collapsed during a minor earthquake, causing injury to the occupants.
Although the sand was not defective, the concrete forming the columns was defective because the mixture ratio of the sand, water, and cement was not proper. The defective concrete was a cause in fact of the collapse.
Do the injured building occupants have viable strict liability claims against the sand distributor?
A. No, because component suppliers are not strictly liable in tort.
B. No, because the distributor neither advised nor participated with the construction company in determining the mixture of sand, water, and cement.
C. Yes, because the concrete columns were defective.
D. Yes, because the distributor knew that an improper mixture of sand, water, and cement would result in defective concrete.
B. No, because the distributor neither advised nor participated with the construction company in determining the mixture of sand, water, and cement.
A commercial supplier in the distribution chain is subject to strict products liability if (1) the product was defective when it left the commercial supplier’s control and (2) that defect caused the plaintiff harm. However, the commercial supplier of a component that is integrated into a defective product, such as sand used in manufacturing defective concrete (as seen here), is not strictly liable unless:
the component is defectiveor
the supplier substantially participated in the integration of the component into that product’s design and the component’s integration caused the product to be defective (Choice A).
Here, the construction company purchased sand from a distributor to make concrete. The concrete columns in the building were defective because the mixture ratio of the sand, water, and cement was improper, but the sand was not defective (Choice C). And though the distributor knew that an improper ratio would result in defective concrete, the distributor neither advised nor participated with the construction company in determining the mixture (Choice D). Therefore, the injured building occupants do not have viable strict liability claims against the sand distributor.
Educational objective:
The commercial supplier of a component that is integrated into a defective product is subject to strict liability when (1) the component is defective or (2) the supplier substantially participated in integrating the component into the product’s design and that integration caused the product to be defective.
References
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 1 (Am. Law Inst. 1998) (strict products liability).
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 5 (Am. Law Inst. 1998) (liability for products that contain defective components).
A mother purchased over-the-counter pain medication for her daughter, who suffered from headaches. The packaging indicated that the pills were “coated” but did not list the ingredients in the coating. A few days after she bought the medication, because the daughter was in extreme pain, the mother gave the daughter three times the recommended dose of the medication. Thirty minutes later, because the daughter had a very rare allergy to an ingredient in the coating, she had a severe allergic reaction, for which she was hospitalized. The mother was aware of the daughter’s allergy, but she did not know that the medication contained the ingredient to which the daughter was allergic.
In a failure-to-warn action brought against the manufacturer of the medication, which of the arguments below would be the LEAST promising as a defense?
A. The daughter’s allergy to the ingredient in the coating was very rare.
B. The manufacturer’s duty was to warn learned intermediaries, not consumers of the medication.
C. The mother should not have given her daughter a triple dose of the medication.
D. The mother, knowing of her daughter’s very rare allergy, should not have purchased the medication without knowing what ingredients were in the coating.
B. The manufacturer’s duty was to warn learned intermediaries, not consumers of the medication.
Under products liability law, a commercial supplier (eg, drug manufacturer) generally is strictly liable for harm caused by its defective product. A product is defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions or the manufacturer’s failure to warn when:
• the product poses a foreseeable risk of harm that is not obvious to an ordinary user and
• reasonable instructions or warnings by the manufacturer could have reduced that risk.
Under the learned-intermediary rule, a prescription drug or medical device is not defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions or the manufacturer’s failure to warn the product’s user when its manufacturer warned the prescribing physician about the risk of harm associated with that product.* When this occurs, the manufacturer will not be held strictly liable because the physician is expected to convey the manufacturer’s warning to the user.
Here, the daughter suffered a severe allergic reaction from the pain medication because she had a very rare allergy to an ingredient in the medication’s coating. The mother did not know that the medication contained this ingredient because the manufacturer failed to list the ingredients. But the manufacturer cannot argue that its duty was to warn learned intermediaries (not consumers) since the medication was purchased over-the-counter—not prescribed by a physician. Therefore, this is the manufacturer’s least promising defense in a failure-to-warn action.
*The learned-intermediary rule does not apply (1) when the manufacturer is aware that the drug or device will be dispensed or administered without the personal intervention or evaluation of a healthcare provider (eg, mass vaccine inoculation) or (2) to birth control pills, due to a federal statute.
(Choice A) The fact that the daughter’s allergy to the ingredient in the coating was very rare would help the manufacturer show that the medication was not defective because it did not pose a foreseeable risk of harm.
(Choices C & D) The manufacturer can plausibly argue that the mother should not have given her daughter a triple dose of the medication or purchased the medication without knowing its ingredients. Both arguments would help show that the mother’s actions were superseding causes that negate the manufacturer’s liability.
Educational objective:
The learned-intermediary rule provides a defense in strict products liability actions under a failure-to-warn theory involving prescription drugs or medical devices—not over-the-counter drugs—if the manufacturer warned the prescribing physician about the risk of harm associated with that product.
79
A dairy farmer bought a milking system for his cows from an independent distributor. The farmer did not communicate with the manufacturer of the milking system or any of its agents before purchasing the system. The distributor knew that the farmer had several lucrative contracts with milk wholesalers, but the manufacturer was unaware of these contracts. The system never operated properly because of a manufacturing defect, and as a result the dairy farmer lost much of the wholesale contract revenue.
Does the farmer have a viable strict products liability claim against the manufacturer for recovery of his lost revenue?
A. No, because of the economic loss doctrine.
B. No, because the manufacturer was not aware of the farmer’s wholesale contracts.
C. Yes, because the consequential damages rule of contract law does not apply in a products liability action in which the product was in fact defective.
D. Yes, because the milking system’s defect proximately caused the farmer’s loss of revenue.
A. No, because of the economic loss doctrine.
Products liability can arise under several theories, including strict liability—ie, liability without proof of fault. Under a strict products liability theory, the following elements must be proven:
• The defendant was a commercial supplier or seller (eg, manufacturer—as seen here).
• The product was defective at the time it left the defendant’s control (eg, manufacturing defect—as seen here).
• The defect caused the plaintiff physical harm (ie, bodily harm or property damage).
Since a strict products liability claim requires proof of physical harm, the economic-loss doctrine prohibits claims for purely economic loss. Purely economic losses include any harm to the defective product itself as well as consequential damages arising therefrom (eg, lost revenue).
Here, the manufacturer’s defective milking system caused the dairy farmer to lose revenue from his contracts with the milk wholesalers. But the farmer suffered only lost revenue—not bodily harm or property damage. And since the economic-loss doctrine does not allow claims for purely economic losses, the farmer does not have a viable strict products liability claim against the manufacturer to recover his lost revenue.
(Choice B) The farmer does not have a viable strict products liability claim against the manufacturer because he suffered purely economic losses—not because the manufacturer was unaware of the farmer’s wholesale contracts.
(Choice C) Under contract law, consequential damages are recoverable if they were reasonably foreseeable to the breaching party when the parties entered into the contract. Although this rule of contract law does not apply in a products liability action, the farmer does not have a viable strict products liability claim because of the economic-loss doctrine—a rule of tort law.
(Choice D) The milking system’s defect proximately caused the farmer’s loss of revenue. Nevertheless, the economic-loss doctrine prohibits the farmer from recovering this lost revenue—a purely economic loss.
Educational objective:
Strict products liability claims require proof of physical harm (ie, bodily harm or property damage). Claims for purely economic loss, including harm to the defective product itself and consequential damages arising therefrom (eg, lost revenue), are not allowed.
References
• Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 21 (Am. Law Inst. 1998) (explaining that a strict products liability action requires proof that the plaintiff suffered physical harm, which does not include pure economic loss).
