Products Liability Flashcards
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
First iteration of P/L (NY 1916)
• F: P injured when car collapses because of defective wood wheels; wheels were not made by D but by 3d party supplier; D could have inspected. P not in privity with D.
• H: D is liable to P because duty of due care is owed to anyone who might reasonably foreseeably use the product
o Here, D manufacturer knew that consumer would ultimately be the one injured due to any manuf. defect (even though D sold to dealership who sold to P)
o Manufacturer is also cheapest cost avoider and have responsibility to inspect finally assembled product
o Old notion – liability of manufacturer was contractual, need privity between P and D court overturns that here
• Case also expands strict liability from dangerous goods to non-dangerous goods (old cases cited were RIL-like negligence cases for things like coffee urns and scaffolding)
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling of Fresno
Manufacturing Defect
• F: Coke bottle explodes in P’s hand, sues D the bottler
• H: extends MacPherson - strict liability on manufacturer (Traynor concurrence is the impt analysis)
o Manufacturer incurs absolute liability when an article they place on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection, proves to have a defect that causes injury
o Put liability on the party most able to internalize the risk (nothing that a consumer can do here to inspect – implied consumer expectation that product is safe)
o Whole distribution chain of product has liability
R2d Torts §402A
“Defective condition unreasonably dangerous” strict liability if:
• Seller is engaged in business of selling such a product and
• It is expected to and does reach user/consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold
• Strict liability applies although:
o Seller has exercised all possible care and
o There’s no privity between injured party and manufacturer
R3d Torts Products Liability
Gets rid of “unreasonably dangerous” language
• Section 2: Types of defects
1. Manufacturing: when product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised
2. Design: foreseeable risks of harm posed by product could’ve been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design
3. Warning: necessary when product is inherently unsafe, and there’s no safer design
• Section 3: like RIL theory for proving existence of a defect
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co
Design Defect Case - 2 tests
• Look to intended or reasonably foreseeable use of the product
• Lays out two tests for defective design:
1. Consumer Expectation – product doesn’t perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner
2. Balancing test – risk benefit analysis
▪ Jury decides if product’s design embodies excessive preventable danger, or if jury finds that the risk of danger inherent in the challenged design outweighs the benefit of such design
▪ Looks to reasonable alternative design (RAD) vs. unavoidably risky
• RAD needs to be the same category of product (can’t turn a SmartCar into a Volvo)
Balancing Test Factors
- gravity of danger posed by challenged design;
- likelihood that such danger would occur;
- mechanical feasibility of safer alternative design;
- financial cost of improved design;
- adverse consequences to product; and
- consumer that would result from alternative design
Soule v. General Motors Corp.
Design Defect Case
• F: P injured in car crash when wheel breaks free, collapses rearward, crumpled floorboard into P’s feet
• H: Ruling for P affirmed here despite bad jury instruction for consumer expectations test; should have had balancing test
o Extensive expert testimony here → clearly not “consumer expectations” appropriate
o GM argued that consumer expectation test can never be used in a crashworthiness test, because of technical complexity – Ct. makes a point of saying that consumers do have legitimate expectations about minimum safety standards of the products they use, even though that doesn’t apply here
• Complex product, latent defect, expert testimony back-and-forth – can’t use consumer expectation test
Dreisonstok v. VW
Categorization for Design Defects
• F: Microbus case – passenger compartment upfront, engine in back not as safe as car with engine and crumple zone in front
o P argues RAD after accident
• H: Costs to VW would be unreasonable and take the product out of the market for which it is intended. Can only compare design at-issue to other products in the same category
• Advocacy skill again
o Define category narrowly (favorable to D)
o Define category broadly (favorable to P)
Evans. v. Lorillard
Categorization for Design Defects
• P argues defective design of cigarettes that caused husband’s death
o Argues RAD for low-tar, low-nicotine cigarette
o D argues that the RAD is not reasonable and P is trying to prove that all cigarettes are ineffective. What about people who want higher nicotine cigarette because lower tar/nicotine versions don’t elicit as good of an experience?
o P defines category as cigarettes for those who are not totally addicted yet, and says that RAD would be low tar/nicotine
• P won based on categorizations
Camacho v. Honda
- F: Motorcycle accident, serious leg injury; argues no crash bars to protect legs
- H: Reversed, for P
- Crashworthiness doctrine
- D argues that motorcycle has open and obvious danger of leg injury – court says this is not a defense to a claim that the product is unreasonably dangerous
- Court uses balancing factors from Ortho:
- Says that summary judgment was improper because there is genuine issue of fact between P’s experts and D’s argument
• Dissent – this is very different from Ortho (which involved pharmaceuticals and medical devices); consumers are aware of the risk on motorcycle, says should have used consumer expectations test and R2d 402A
Ortho Balancing Factors for Design Defect
- Usefulness and desirability of the product – its utility to user and public as a whole
- Safety aspects of the product – likelihood that it will cause injury and the probability of serious injury
- Availability of substitute product which would fill same needs and not be as unsafe
- Manuf’s ability to eliminate unsafe character or product w/o impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain utility
- User’s ability to avoid danger by exercise of care in using the product
- User’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability…or existence of suitable warnings/instructions
- Manuf’s feasibility of spreading the loss by setting the price of product or carrying liability insurance
Warning Defect: Key Elements
- Content: warn about obvious and nonobvious dangers
- Presentation: prominence and location of warning
- Addressee: for all foreseeable users (incl. children, foreign language speakers)
Hood v. Ryobi
• F: Miter saw case; P injured when removing blade guard (against several warnings)
• H: For D; warning was clear and sufficient
o No manufacturing defect claim here; design defect claims almost always accompanied by failure to warn claim
o P argues that the warnings were insufficiently specific, but court disagrees – said that they clearly warned of serious bodily injury; don’t have to be encyclopedic
o “Reasonable” warning was clearly satisfied here – there was sufficient warning on the tool itself as well as throughout the owner’s manual
What to focus on in all warnings cases
o Presentation – prominence of the warning matters (tradeoff between size/content) - “physical aspects of the warning must be adequate to alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger”
o Content – needs to be clear: communicate scope of the danger, extent or seriousness of the harm that could result
Note:
• If child is reasonably foreseeable user, need warning and design to accommodate that. E.g. cigarette lighter case
State v. Karl
End of Learned Intermediary Doctrine
• F: D argues for court to adopt learned intermediary doctrine so that pharma co is not held liable for failure to warn end consumer about dangers of the drug
• H: Court here does not adopt the learned intermediary doctrine
o Purpose of learned intermediary doctrine is that doctor ultimately must prescribe the drug anyway, so as long as manuf warns doctor about the drug’s dangers, the doctor can pass those warnings on to the patient
▪ Difficult for manufs to warn directly
▪ Patients rely on their treating physicians
▪ Concern that direct warnings to ultimate users would interfere w/ doctor-patient relationship
o Court rejects arguments above – says that market has changed
▪ Direct to consumer advertising by pharma co’s
▪ Unfair to hold doctors liable for the side effects of the pharma co → pharma is in better position to bear the cost of liability
