Product Liability Flashcards
*Escola
Manufacturing defect. SL. Waitress injured when Coca-Cola bottle exploded bc too much gas, and in Traynor concurrence he said don’t use res ipsa loquitur like majority because it is “circuitous” and is a way of using negligence that is basically strict liability, so just say you are using SL! Manufacturers are in best position to guard against hazards public cannot. Because of long supply chains, “The consumer no longer has means or skill enough to investigate for himself the soundness of a product.” The obligation of the manufacturer must keep pace with the changing relationship.
o Important caveat: “of course” this is limited to product in “normal and proper” use and must be traceable to product. Also, dangerous products like knives can only be made somewhat safe, and that is ok.
RTT §1
“One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect.”
*Campo
Design defect. Onion topping machine case where hand caught in steel roller. Court said manufacturer doesn’t have to make machine accident proof; it just needs to function properly for the purpose for which it was designed and have no latent defects. OPEN AND OBVIOUS danger rule: “the very nature of the article gives notice and warning of the consequences to be expected, of the injuries to be suffered.”
*Young
Design defect. In car accident, seat of car separated from floor resulting in “second collision” of being thrown through rear of car. Court said intended use of vehicle includes accidents and the vehicle design needs to be a reasonably safe vehicle in which to travel. Doesn’t matter that design defect didn’t cause the initial collision since it caused the ultimate injury. NO SL FOR DESIGN DEFECT – NEGLIGENCE.
Dawson
Design defect. Damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t and court doesn’t care. Chrysler held liable for a frame not “rigid” enough because a pole went through it, even though Chrysler argued that if it made the car frame any more rigid, the car couldn’t absorb the impact that would otherwise be transmitted to occupant [note: conflicts with Cooley].
Micallef
Design defect. GETS RID OF OPEN AND OBVIOUS RULE FOR BPL. Micallef got finger caught in printing press while trying to remove foreign object from machine with 8 inch piece of plastic while machine still running.
*Barker
Design defect. Injured while operating high lift loader. Court said 2 tests for defective design: 1) Product failed to perform as safely as ordinary consumer would expect when used in intended or reasonably foreseeable manner (sent to jury, but problem is ordinary consumer doesn’t know what to expect because doesn’t know how safe the product could have been made). 2) Benefits of challenged design do not outweigh risk of danger inherent in such a design (excessive preventable danger).
o RULE: Use BPL factors when weighing adequacy of design. Plaintiff must merely make a prima facie showing of injury proximately caused by product’s design and then the burden shifts to the defendant to weigh BPL for alternative design.
Wilson
Opposite rule of Barker: engine of the aircraft was susceptible to icing. Court said plaintiff needed to present the evidence of alternatives because the airline industry is highly regulated and the plane and already met FAA minimum design standards.
O’Brien
Idiot diving off roof into 3 foot pool case thinking alternative design of a non-vinyl lining would have prevented him from not hitting his head.
RTT §2
“a product…is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.”
Note: if no reasonable alternative design is available, like for an exploding cigar, and the utility of the product is so low and the risk of injury is so high, its just a defective product that shouldn’t be sold at all.
*Vassalo
Plaintiff says defendant liable for silicone breast implants that were negligently designed and accompanied by negligent product warnings; silicone implants ruptured and slowly leaked silicone gel. Court said that MA SL law for duty to warn should be changed to “state of the art” standard conditioning liability on actual or constructive knowledge of risks because goal of law is to induce conduct that is capable of being performed. Can’t change what you reasonably didn’t know about.
o Problems: duty to warn turns latent defects into open and obvious danger, and that takes us back to a test we got rid of in Campo; warning is more efficient in BPL, so if a reasonable alternative design is $20 and is less than PL of $50, but warning is $1, which do you do? Duty to warn is last resort, so must do reasonable alternative, but this is economically inefficient.
