Products Liability Flashcards
You produced a product. I was injured. It caused the injury.
The person in the distribution chain most likely to have been negligent
Manufacturer
(Note: Any commercial supplier can be held liable in a strict product liability action. A commercial supplier includes the manufacture, distributor, commercial lessor, or retailer of the product.)
The 5 elements of a prima facie case for Products Liability are
(1) ∆is a commercial supplier (merchant); (2) the product was defective; (3) the product was not altered since leaving the defendant [actual cause]; (4) π used the product in a foreseeable way [proximate cause]; and (5) damage.
The three types of product defects
(1) manufacturing/production defects
(2) design defects
(3) warning defects
To prove a design defect, the plaintiff must show that there is a
Reasonable Alternative Design (by showing that the ∆ could have made the product safer, without a serious impact on the product’s price or utility.)
California-Type Defect Test adopted by the courts
A product can be defective, based upon either a risk-utility test (RAD) or a consumer expectations test (no rational, well-informed consumer would buy such a stupid product.)
When you discuss design defects OR warnings you inherently talk about
Negligence. (Typically an argument of Cost & Benefits; reasonable standard)
What is the difference between Production/Manufacturing & Design Defects?
A product has a Manufacturing Defect if a single product alone is more dangerous than the other manufactured products made properly.
A product has a Design Defect if ALL the products in the line are the same but have dangerous propensities.
Express Warranty (Definition, general)
The seller says something, fact or promise, that becomes part of the basis of the bargain and turns out not to be true
(Brief Mention) Three ways an express warranty may arise under UCC 2-313
(1) statement of fact or promise about the goods
(2) description of the goods
(3) use of a sample or model
[you do not have to show it was THE reason just A reason]
(Brief Mention) Implied Warrant of Merchantability (UCC 2-314
That the good is fit for its ordinary purposes when sold by a merchant
Where/Why is warranty useful
if π suffered pure economic harm, he will usually do better than in a strict liability suit
statute of limitations is generally longer for this suit
(Brief Mention) Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purposes (UCC 2-315)
If you know a particular purpose that a buyer wants for a good, you are implyingly warranting that the good will fit for that purpose
Misrepresentation
Kind of a give. It misrepresents the truth of the product, ∆gets fucked bc they deserve it for lying.
Restatement §402A
Under certain circumstances, a seller of a product can be strictly liable for personal injuries or property damage caused by a product
Restatement 3rd §402A – The only circumstance where you’ll clearly get Strict Liability
Production Defect
T/F: There is no INDEPENDENT consumer expectations Test
True
Under Restatement 3rd, Statutory safety violations can make the product “per se defective” if the right kind of harm results.
How do you prove that?
(1) there’s a statute that says ∆ must manufacture a product according to the following design.
(2) ∆ didn’t
(3) The hazard that resulted is the one that the legislature was trying to prevent
How can you use circumstantial evidence to establish defects?
Rule out alternative theories. (Think Peanuts case; kinda like RIL tbh)
Warning Defect
A product could be defective because you didn’t warn adequately.
∆ has a duty to warn of foreseeable risks, regardless of negligence.
You must include warnings for:
(1) foreseeable misuses of the product
(2) side effects
What differentiates ‘Warning’ from ‘negligence’
A reasonable person wouldn’t warn anyone about a 1 in a million chance, but you would be held liable under Warning for not doing so nonetheless.
Some States embrace a heeding presumption: that we rebuttably presume
that a consumer would have heeded a warning if it had been given
(requiring that even without the testimony of the π the jury could find that there was causality between the failure to warn and the π’s injury)
[Wonnell says only important when π is dead]
