Products Liability Flashcards
Chapter 15
what is products liability?
liability of a supplier of a product to one injured by the product
includes theories of negligence, strict liability, and express and implied warrantied
what are goals of products liability?
social responsibility
loss spreading
safety incentives
major types of product liability
- express and implied warranties (privity based)
- strict liability or negligence theories
a. manufacturing defects - occur in production of the item, and impact some of the overall production line
b. design defects - inherent flaws that existed before manufacturing, which cause unreasonable danger
c. defects in marketing - improper instructions or failure to warn the consumer of latent (present but not yet visible) dangers
development of theories of recovery - Negligence
The manufacturer can be held responsible for injuries caused by their product, even if they did not sell it directly to the person who got hurt.
- this is because they should have known that making a faulty product could hurt someone, even if they only made a part of it.
You do not need to have a direct relationship with the manufacturer to sue them for negligence. the manufacturer has a responsibility to make sure their product is safe, not just for the person who buys it but also for anyone who might use it.
Does a manufacturer of a non-inherently dangerous thing owe a duty of care to anyone besides the immediate purchaser?
YES ,
If a car is not built properly, it can become dangerous, even though cars are not naturally dangerous. because of this manufacturer can be held responsible if their poorly made car causes harm.
Warranty (express and implied)- Breach of an assumed duty (development of theories of recovery)
Express warranty = if seller of a product promises or guarantees that it will work a certain way, and u rely on that promise when buying it, that promise becomes part of the deal (basis of bargain)
you should be able to trust that promise when making your decision to purchase
implied warranty = “merchantability” means that a product is good enough to be sold to customers, while “fitness for a particular purpose” means it is suitable for specific use,
if something is labelled as suitable for a general purpose, it should work well for that purpose.
Is a manufacturer liable to a consumer for breach of an express warranty when there is no privity [relationship] between the manufacturer and the consumer?
if a manufacturer promises something specific about their product, they are responsible for keeping that promise to the person who buys the product, even if it is bought from a store and not directly the manufacturer.
it would not be fair to let a manufacturer off the hook, if they promised a certain quality but didn’t deliver, just because the buyer did not directly buy from them.
If a manufacturer puts an item into the stream of commerce and promotes its purchase to the public, is there an implied warranty for the item?
There is an implied warranty that the item is reasonably suitable for the use for which it is manufactured and sold
Strict Liability in Tort
if someone sells a product that dangerous because its defective and they’re in the business of selling that kind of product, they can be held responsible for any harm to causes. The product should reach the user without major changes, the seller should be careful
is a manufacturer strictly liable when he places a product on the market that proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being – regardless of whether or not the manufacturer knew that the product was going to be used without inspection for defects?
- to establish manufacturers liability the plaintiff must prove
1. that he sustained the injury while using the product for its intended purpose
2. injury was a result of the defect in the design and manufacture of the product
3. the plaintiff was not aware that the product was unsafe for its intended use
Product defects - manufacturing defect
a defect in a few products happens when something goes wrong during manufacturing, making those products different from the others in a bad way
the product must be dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer because of a departure from its intended design
example - if a product is dangerously defective due to how it was made, causing physical harm to the user, the seller is responsible even if they did not intend for it to be that way, then the manufacturer is strictly liable.
products defects - design defect
if there is a problem with the whole batch of products because of a design flaw or packaging issue, making them dangerous, its about the product itself and not necessarily the manufacturers actions.
the burden of proof - for a manufacturer to be responsible for a defective product, the problem must exist when the product leaves their hands. additionally, there should be a way to make the product less dangerous or costly without major changes.
Risk Utility Factors to Assess Designs
figuring out if a product is too dangerous for people to use safely
- how much people need and like the product VS how likely it is to cause harm
- if there are other safer products that can do the same thing without costing too much
- if the danger can be reduced without make the product too expensive
- if the danger is obvious and can be avoided with proper warnings
- if people would normally expect the product to be risky based on what its used for
Knife example –> for design defect and risk utility factors
knives do not contain a design defect, even though they often cut users, because there is no way to avoid the harm without destroying its utility (use)
crashworthiness - is an automobile “defective” if it was not designed to minimize injury to passengers during a collision?
Majority view - YES , the risk of collision is foreseeable, and the design must reflect this
minority view - NO, the manufacturer is under no duty to design an accident-proof or crash proof car because the intended purpose of cars does not include their participation in a collision
warnings defect
when products fail to give adequate warning of dangers that were known, or should have been known, because they were not apparent to users
also this includes leaving out important directions or guidance that could help people use something safely or effectively.
making the product not reasonably safe
Burden of Proof - on plaintiff to show that the warnings were inadequate
To hold a manufacturer responsible for not warning about a danger, plaintiff has to show that manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk that led to the injury.
- defendant must also prove that they didn’t know about the risk or couldn’t have predicted it when they made the product
example of warning defect
ex –> a toy made for kids has small parts that can be a choking hazard to small children. There must be a warning on the package that tells parents not to allow children under a certain age to use the product.
Proof - Can a plaintiff maintain a claim for a defective product even if he does not eliminate all other possibilities of their injury?
Yes, a plaintiff can still make a case for a defective product with indirect evidence, which suggests a fact exists even if it doesn’t prove it outright,
if something bad happens because of a products and its something that usually happens due to a product problem, and was not because of other reasons, it is likely that the product was defective when it was sold or given out, even if no specific proof of what went wrong with it
Defenses - Plaintiffs conduct
doctrine of comparative negligence , and strict product liability
doctrine of comparative negligence, - in strict products liability case = if plaintiffs own carelessness contributed to their injury, then their compensation may be reduced accordingly.
a plaintiffs misuse of a product will not prevent recovery under a strict liability theory of recovery, if the plaintiffs abnormal or unintended use of the product could have been or was foreseeable to the defendant
- the amount that P can collect may be reduced based on P’s fault
If court finds that plaintiffs misuse is VERY extensive then the product will not be deemed defective
Defendants other than manufacturers - harm other than personal injury
Should sellers of used cars and other used products – who were outside of the original producing and marketing chain of the product – be subject to strict liability?
NO, strict liability does not apply to sellers of used products unless they caused the defect or the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer
manufacturers should be held strictly liable for the products they make and sell because they profit from these products and control their safety.
- retailers may be liable if they change or have power over product safety
Can Amazon.com be held liable for the sale of a defective product if they did not manufacture the product, but rather stored and shipped the product to the customer?
NOT considered a seller responsible or that can be held liable for the product because they are a platform that distributes products from diff sellers.
the manufacturer or seller of the specific product is responsible for liability, NOT amazon, as they only distribute, not take ownership of the products
brand name drug company that sells all its rights and no longer makes a drug, are they still responsible for the warning labels on generic version?
YES even if they sold all their rights, no longer make the brand name drug, or even produced the generic version. they still have to make sure that the warning labels on the generic version are good enough to keep people safe
Can hospitals be held strictly liable for defective products used in patient care?
NO they can not be held liable for defective products they use, because their main job is to provide medical services, not sell products. strict liability only applies if a hospital seems a defective product in a gift shop, not part of medical treatment
usually liability for services like medical care is based on negligence, not strict liability
Restatement second of torts (for products liability)
- one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous is subject to liability if
a. the seller is engaged in the business of selling such product
b. it is expected to and does reach the consumer without substantial change in which it is sold
example–> if someone sells a bike, and someone re does and tunes it, no longer liable
- rule states in sub section 1 applied although
a. the seller has exercised all possible care
manufacturing defects test
Dangerous beyond expectation of ordinary consumer, because of departure from intended design.
design defect test
- Risk utility factor test
- how much people want and need the product VS how likely it is to cause harm
- if there are safer options available that do the same thing without costing a lot
- if the danger can be reduced without making the product too pricey but still does the same job
- if the danger is clear and can be avoided with warnings
- what the avg person would expect in terms of danger from using the product
- Consumer expectation test (would reasonable consumer expect the product to be dangerous in this way)
Risk Utility Test - TALK ABOUT THIS on exam WHEN TALKING ABOUT DESIGN DEFECT
- Safety over Desirability: Safety should always come first, even if people really want or need a product.
- Safer Choices Available: If there are other options that are safer and not too expensive, those should be preferred.
- Making Safe Design Choices Without Cost Increase: We should choose designs that meet needs without making the product too expensive, while still ensuring safety.
- Clearly Warn About Risks: If a product is obviously dangerous, make sure users know about the risks with suitable warnings.
- Consider Common Expectations of Danger: Think about what ordinary people might expect in terms of danger from the product.
Restatement third of torts product liability
product is defective because of inadequate warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced
- product is defective if inadequate warnings
res ispa loquitor - circumstantial evidence is available
- if someone gets hurt by a product it may be inferred that there was a problem with the product when it was made or sold
defenses to product liability claim
THE USE OF PRODUCT BY PLAINTIFF WAS “ABNORMAL” OR “MISUSE” OF PRODUCT
Comparative negligence can be used as defense to product liability claim
(car door not opening in accident, and door lock, but P was drunk and no seatbelt, the negligence added to the incident) - can be used as a defence
misuse needs to be unforeseeable use for it to be used as a defense
Can a consumer who uses a product carelessly but does not misuse it win a strict product liability claim against product manufacturer ?
yes
hypo - 7 year old took glass of beer and threw it at a tree
- broke and went into many pieces hitting the kid in the eye and blinding him
- parents sue strict liability saying bottle was defectively design, if it didn’t break into so many small pieces it may have been less dangerous
- bottle is not defective
- bottle was not meant to be broken
