Products Liability

Question 1

The person in the distribution chain most likely to have been negligent

Answer 1

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.)

Question 2

The 5 elements of a prima facie case for Products Liability are

Answer 2

(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.

Question 3

The three types of product defects

Answer 3

(1) manufacturing/production defects
(2) design defects
(3) warning defects

Question 4

To prove a design defect, the plaintiff must show that there is a

Answer 4

Reasonable Alternative Design (by showing that the ∆ could have made the product safer, without a serious impact on the product’s price or utility.)

Question 5

California-Type Defect Test adopted by the courts

Answer 5

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.)

Question 6

When you discuss design defects OR warnings you inherently talk about

Answer 6

Negligence. (Typically an argument of Cost & Benefits; reasonable standard)

Question 7

What is the difference between Production/Manufacturing & Design Defects?

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Express Warranty (Definition, general)

Answer 8

The seller says something, fact or promise, that becomes part of the basis of the bargain and turns out not to be true

Question 9

(Brief Mention) Three ways an express warranty may arise under UCC 2-313

Answer 9

(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]

Question 10

(Brief Mention) Implied Warrant of Merchantability (UCC 2-314

Answer 10

That the good is fit for its ordinary purposes when sold by a merchant

Question 11

Where/Why is warranty useful

Answer 11

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

Question 12

(Brief Mention) Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purposes (UCC 2-315)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Misrepresentation

Answer 13

Kind of a give. It misrepresents the truth of the product, ∆gets fucked bc they deserve it for lying.

Question 14

Restatement §402A

Answer 14

Under certain circumstances, a seller of a product can be strictly liable for personal injuries or property damage caused by a product

Question 15

Restatement 3rd §402A – The only circumstance where you’ll clearly get Strict Liability

Answer 15

Production Defect

Question 16

T/F: There is no INDEPENDENT consumer expectations Test

Answer 16

True

Question 17

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?

Answer 17

(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

Question 18

How can you use circumstantial evidence to establish defects?

Answer 18

Rule out alternative theories. (Think Peanuts case; kinda like RIL tbh)

Question 19

Warning Defect

Answer 19

A product could be defective because you didn’t warn adequately.

∆ has a duty to warn of foreseeable risks, regardless of negligence.

Question 20

You must include warnings for:

Answer 20

(1) foreseeable misuses of the product
(2) side effects

Question 21

What differentiates ‘Warning’ from ‘negligence’

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Some States embrace a heeding presumption: that we rebuttably presume

Answer 22

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]