Products Liability Flashcards
Strict Products Liability - Prima Facie
Commercial supplier can be held strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by a defective product IF P shows:
1. D is commercial supplier
2. D produced/sold product that was defective when it left D’s control
3. Defective product was actual + proximate cause of P’s injury
4. P suffered damages to person or property (court may deny recovery if it’s only economic loss)
Actual Cause: Actual cause might be negated if there was a substantial change in the product after it left D’s control
Proximate Cause: Courts look at if commercial supplier anticipated reasonably foreseeable misuses of the product
Define
commercial supplier
Strict liability applies to commercial suppliers that place products in stream of commerce/chain of distribution
* NOT casual or one-time sellers
Ex. Manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, assemblers, retailers
Ex. A retailer is a commercial supplier subject to strict liability for the sale of a defective product that injures the plaintiff. Regardless of the fact that the retailer has no role in the manufacture or design of the blender, if it was part of the distribution chain that sold the product to the plaintiff in the course of its business, it will be treated the same as the manufacturer.
Define
“defective” product
Types of Defects:
* manufacturing defect
* design defect
* information defect (inadequate warnings)
Manufacturing Defect
Where a product emerges from manufacturing different and more dangerous than other properly made products
Consumer Expectation Test: D liable if P can show product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
Design Defect
Defect that makes the product **inherently dangerous **because of its design (mechanical features or packaging).
Feasible Alternative Test:
* product was not safe for its intended use
* there was reasonable alternative to design that was economically feasible and less dangerous; and
* failure to use alternative made product unreasonably dangerous.
Court will look at:
* Usefulness of product
* Availability of safer alternative products
* Dangers of product
* Likelihood of serious injury
* Obviousness of danger
* Normal public expectation of danger
* Avoidability of injury by using care in use of product
* Feasibility of eliminating danger without seriously impairing product’s function or making it unduly expensive
Government Safety Standards
* If product fails to comply with gov safety standards, it’s deemed defective
* If product complied with gov safety standards, it does NOT prove product wasn’t defective as a matter of law. This is question of fact for the jury (no MTD allowed)
Inadequate warning
Product doesn’t have clear and complete warnings of dangers that are not apparent to users
* Presumption: Can presume plaintiff would have read and followed the warning if it had adequately warned of the danger
Exception (Learned Intermediary Rule): For prescription drugs, warnings are sufficient if given to prescribing physician; don’t need to be given directly to patients.
Negligence - Products Liability
- Duty: Affirmative duty of commercial supplier (to all users, consumers, and bystanders); no contractual privity required
- Breach: D knew or should’ve known that the product was defective/dangerous (there were enough facts to put it on notice) - must show negligent conduct by D that led D to sell defective product
- Causation
- Damages
Majority view: retailer who buys from a reputable manufacturer with no reason to anticipate that the product is dangerous will NOT be liable for negligence in a products liability action
Negligence - Products Liability (proximate cause)
A wholesaler/intermediary’s negligent failure to discover the defect does NOT supersede the original manufacturer’s negligence, unless the wholesaler’s conduct exceeds ordinary foreseeable negligence
Regular Proximate Cause
* D liable for all harmful results that result from conduct + harm from increased risk created by conduct.
* Indirect cause case: intervening force after D’s negligence combines with it to cause P’s injury. If D’s negligence made it foreseeable the intervening force would harm P, D is liable.
* Superseding force: If D’s negligence created foreseeable risk that third party would commit intentional tort/crime, D’s liability is NOT cut off by tort/crime. If tort/crime wasn’t foreseeable, it is a superseding force that cuts of D’s liability
* Ex. D’s negligence is leaving door open and intervening force is burglary. If burglary wasn’t foreseeable, then it’s superseding force.
Mitigation of Damages
P always has duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages
* Failure to mitigate prevents recovery for additional damages caused by injury getting worse
Personal Injury: P must seek appropriate treatment to prevent injury from getting worse
Implied Warranty of Merchantability - Other Cause of Action
When merchant sells product, there is implied warranty of merchantability, which guarantees that product is fit for ordinary purposes for which goods are used
* To be merchantable, goods must be adequately contained, packaged, or labeled according to the contract and must conform to any promises or affirmations of fact made on the label (ex. color of hair dye)
* If warranty is breached, D is liable for injuries caused by product to buyer and buyer’s family
Causation, damages, and defenses are the same as for negligence/strict liability.
Ex. Includes prescription pills
Express Warranty - Other Cause of Action
Arises when seller/supplier makes affirmation or promise regarding condition of goods to buyer that becomes the basis of the bargain.
* If warranty is breached, D is liable for injuries caused by product to buyer and buyer’s family
Causation, damages, and defenses are the same as for negligence/strict liability.
Misrepresentation - Other Cause of Strict Liability
If commercial supplier/seller makes misrepresentation of material fact regarding product, with intent to induce reliance, and buyer relies on it, gives rise to liability under strict liability, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.
Causation, damages, and defenses are the same as for negligence/strict liability.
Defense to Negligence - Contributory/Comparative Negligence
If P’s negligence contributed to injury:
(a) Under traditional contributory negligence rules, P barred from recovery
* P who knowingly and voluntarily assumed risk of injury also barred from recovery
(b) Under modern comparative negligence rules, P’s damages are reduced accordingly
* Modern rules replaced traditional contributory negligence and implied assumption of risk rules
Determination of contributory negligence is not made until trial, so a motion to dismiss on this ground should be denied.
Defense to Strict Liability - Unreasonable Assumption of Risk
If P’s negligence contributed to injury:
(a) Under traditional contributory negligence rules, P’s negligence is NOT barred from recovery in strict liability action
* Doesn’t matter that P failed to discover defect or P engaged in reasonably foreseeable misuse
* Voluntary and unreasonable assumption of risk IS defense to strict liability
(b) Under modern comparative negligence rules, P’s damages are reduced accordingly
* Modern rules replaced traditional contributory negligence and implied assumption of risk rules
