Product Liability Flashcards
Products Liability
Under tort law, a manufacturer or seller who releases an
unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce is liable for harm caused by the product. In order to recover, it must be proved that the product was defective in
design, manufacture, or warning, and one of four separate and distinct theories of
liability must be asserted: intentional, negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability.
Design Defect
When a product is defective in design, it means that the product was
produced as intended by the manufacturer, but because of its design, the product
creates an unreasonable danger to consumers. However, a defense may exist where
the product is unavoidably unsafe and its benefits outweigh its dangers.
Manufacture Defect
When a product is defective in manufacture, it means that the
product was not made as intended. Instead, due to an error in the production of the
particular item at issue, the product is aberrant. Note that other products of the same
type may not be defective.
Warning Defect
When a product is defective in warning, its design and production are
as intended, but the product poses a danger that is not apparent to the reasonable
customer.
Products Liability (Intentional)
In order for the plaintiff to recover on a theory of intent
(battery), the plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer, distributor, or supplier knew the
product would cause harm at the time the product was released into the stream of
commerce.
Products Liability (Negligence)
In order for a plaintiff to recover under a negligence
theory of products liability, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation, and
damages.
A duty of care originally extended only to those in privity of contract, but under
McPherson v. Buick, the duty was extended to all foreseeable users. To establish
breach, the plaintiff must show that the product failed to meet ordinary commercial
expectations. Damages are limited to personal and property.
MacPherson v. Buick
In the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick, Justice Cardozo
dispensed with the previously applied requirement of privity of contract in products
liability cases and extended the manufacturer’s duty of care to include the ultimate
consumer of the product, whether or not the consumer was the actual purchaser of the
product. Later cases extended the duty to include not just the purchaser or the ultimate
consumer, but to include all persons and property likely to be endangered by the
product’s probable use, such as the consumer’s family or guests, or even near
bystanders.
Products Liability (Breach of Warranty)
Liability can be imposed against the
manufacturer or seller of a product based upon the buyer’s reliance upon an express or
implied warranty that the goods are of merchantable quality or are fit for their intended
purpose.
Products Liability (Strict Liability)
Strict liability may be imposed against a
manufacturer or seller of a product which is defective and thereby unsafe for its
anticipated use, or for failure to warn the consumer of an inherent danger involved in the
use of the product when put to an intended or foreseeable use. To prevail in a products
strict liability action, the plaintiff must prove:
1) manufacture or sale of the product was by defendant,
2) the product was defective,
3) the product and its defective aspects were the actual and proximate cause of the
plaintiff’s injuries, and
4) the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant’s hands.
