Products Liability Flashcards
Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Defective Products
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 party caused by the defect.
Manufacturing Defect
A product contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.
Defective Product (402A): Selling a Defective Product in a Dangerous Condition
One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm, thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property if:
- The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
- It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold
i. The rules stated in subsection (1) applies though
- The seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation of the sale of his product, and
- The user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller
Circumstantial Evidence Supporting Inference of Product Defect
It may be inferred that the harm sustained by the plaintiff was caused by a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution, without proof of a specific defect, when the incident that harmed the plaintiff:
i. Was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of product defect; and
ii. Was not, in the particular case, solely the result of causes other than product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution
Categories of Product Defects
A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective and designed, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product:
a. Contains a manufacturing defect (strict liability)
b. Contains a design defect (negligence)
c. Contains defective warnings (negligence)
Contract or Tort?
General rule is that a plaintiff cannot recover in tort when the basis of their harm is purely based in economics, with no harms to persons or property. Liability may be found in contract, but not in tort.
Design Defects
A product is defective in design when the foreseeable risk 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.
Two Test: Consumer Expectations Test and Risk-Utility Test
Consumer Expectations Test
Does the product fail to perform as safely as on ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner?
Risk-Utility Test
Do the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design?
The π must prove that a reasonable alternative design was available to the ∆ and the failure to use that design has rendered the product not reasonably safe.
The alternative design must be economically feasible.
Prescription Drugs
Under the learned intermediary rule, the manufacturer of a prescription drug typically satisfies its duty to warn the consumer by informing the prescribing physician of problems with the drug rather than informing the patient taking the drug.
Exceptions:
i. If the manufacturer is aware that the drug will be administered without the personal intervention or evaluation of a healthcare provider, such as when a vaccine is administered through a mass inoculation; and
ii. As a result of a federal statute, in the case of birth control pills
The Duty to Warn: Defective Warnings
A product is defective because of an adequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.
Defective Warnings: Two Questions
Duty: Would a reasonable person give a warning under these circumstances?
Adequacy: Does the warning reasonably communicate to the average person the risk of harm?
Note: No need to warn of every mishap or source of injury that the mind can imagine flowing from the product.
Plaintiff’s Conduct
i. A plaintiff’s recovery of damages for harm caused by a product defect may be reduced if the conduct of the plaintiff combines with the product defect to cause the harm and the plaintiff’s conduct fails to conform to generally applicable rules establishing appropriate standards of care.
ii. The manner and extent of the reduction under subsection (i) and the apportionment of the plaintiff’s recovery among multiple defendants are governed by generally applicable rules apportioning responsibility.
Defenses
Comparative Fault
- Π’s own negligence reduces his recovery
Contributory Negligence
- Π’s negligence is generally not a defense to a strict-liability action when the π negligently failed to discover the defect or misused the product in a reasonably foreseeably way.
Reasonable Misuse
- Suppliers are required to anticipate reasonably foreseeable misuses of their products
Product Misuse, Modification., or Alteration by the User
i. The misuse or modification of a product by the user in a manner that is neither intended by nor reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer typically negates liability
ii. On the other hand, foreseeable misuse, alteration, or modification usually does not.
