Products Liability Flashcards
What case is credited with obviating the privity requirement in products liability actions?
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
What are the facts of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.?
Buick Motor Co. (D) made a new automobile using parts it purchased from its various suppliers.
Buick neglected to inspect and perform safety tests on the automobile before it was sold to a retail dealer.
MacPherson (P) then bought this car from the dealer.
While MacPherson (P) was driving the car, one of the wheels, which was made of defective wood, crumbled into fragments.
The car collapsed and MacPherson (P) was thrown out and injured.
There was evidence that the defects could have been discovered if Buick (D) had performed a reasonable inspection.
What is the rule from MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. / Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care and vigilance to anyone other than the immediate purchaser of a product?
(i) rejected the defendant manufacturer’s claim that it could not be held liable because there was no privity between the plaintiff and the defendant, and;
(ii) held that if a reasonable person would foresee that the chattel would create a risk of harm to human life or limb if not carefully made or supplied, the manufacturer or supplier of the chattel is under a duty of care in its manufacture and supply—and this duty is owed to all foreseeable users.
For a manufacturer to be liable independent of contract, there must also be knowledge that in the usual course of events the danger will be shared by others than the buyer. Such knowledge may often be inferred from the nature of the transaction.
When there is an element of probable danger with a product, the manufacturer is under a duty to make it carefully.
The car manufacturer was responsible for the finished product. It was not at liberty to put the finished product on the market without subjecting the component parts to ordinary and simple tests
The obligation to inspect must vary with the nature of the thing to be inspected. The more probable the danger, the greater the need of caution.
What standard was applied in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.?
Negligence.
Do lawyers prefer to bring products liability cases based on strict liability or negligence? Why?
Negligence. Juries are more likely to award larger damages when they feel the ∆ did something wrong.
What are the facts of Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.?
Baxter (P) purchased a Model A Ford from St. John Motors (D), who had acquired the automobile from Ford Motor Co. (D).
Ford’s (D) catalogues, given to Baxter (P) by St. John (D) prior to sale, represented that the car had a shatter-proof glass windshield which would not shatter under the hardest impact.
Baxter (P) was injured when a pebble struck and shattered the window, causing glass to fly into Baxter’s (P) eyes.
Baxter (P) lost sight in his left eye, and his right eye was injured.
The trial court refused to admit evidence of Ford’s (D) printed warranty.
The court took the case from the jury and entered judgment for ∆s. Baxter (P) appealed.
What is the cause of action in Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.?
Breach of express warranty.
Why could the π in Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. not sue Ford for breach of contract?
Because the car was purchased from a dealer and thus there was no privity with Ford.
What is the rule from Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. / Can a tort action be maintained for breach of an express warranty, even when there is no privity of contract between the injured party and the warranting party?
A purchaser has a remedy against a manufacturer because of damages suffered by reason of a failure of goods to comply with the manufacturer’s representations as to the existence of qualities which they did not in fact possess, when the absence of such qualities were not readily discoverable, even though there was no privity of contract between the purchaser and the manufacturer.
The breach of an express warranty is actionable in tort, even absent privity of contract, if a purchaser of ordinary experience and reasonable prudence could not have discovered the defect.
In the case at bar, the automobile was represented by the manufacturer as having a windshield of non-shatterable glass “so made that it will not fly or shatter under the hardest impact.” An ordinary person would be unable to discover by the usual and customary examination of the automobile whether glass which would not fly or shatter was used in the windshield.
The nature of non-shatterable glass is such that the falsity of the representations with reference to the glass would not be readily detected by a person of ordinary experience and reasonable prudence.
If a person states as true material facts susceptible of knowledge to one who relies and acts thereon to his injury, if the representations are false, it is immaterial that he did not know they were false, or that he believed them to be true.
What are the policy reasons for allowing recovery for express warranties?
Fairness.
Public policy.
The rule in such cases does not rest upon contractual obligations, but rather on the principle that the original act of delivering an article is wrong, when, because of the lack of those qualities which the manufacturer represented it as having, the absence of which could not be readily detected by the consumer, the article is not safe for the purposes for which the consumer would ordinarily use it.
May beech of express warranty actions be brought for property damage or personal injury? Or both?
Both.
Should the π be required to demonstrate reliance upon the representation, either in making the purchase or in using the product in breach of express warranty actions?
Yes, most courts require reliance, however, a minority do not.
What are the facts of Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.?
Mr. Henningsen purchased a car from Bloomfield Motors Inc. (D), a retail dealer.
The car had been manufactured by Chrysler Corporation (D).
Mr. Henningsen gave the car to his wife for Christmas.
Mrs. Henningsen (P) was badly injured a few years later when the steering gear failed and the car turned right into a wall.
When he purchased the car, Mr. Henningsen signed a contract without reading the fine print.
The fine print contained a ‘‘warranty’’ clause which disclaimed all implied warranties and which granted an express warranty for all defects within 90 days or 4000 miles, whichever came first.
Mrs. Henningsen (P) sued Bloomfield (D) and Chrysler (D).
The trial court dismissed her negligence counts but ruled for Mrs. Henningsen (P) based on the implied warranty of merchantability.
Bloomfield (D) and Chrysler (D) appealed.
What was the cause of action in Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.?
Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
What is an implied warranty of merchantability?
If the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the article is required and it appears that he has relied on the seller’s skill or judgment, an implied warranty arises of reasonable fitness for that purpose.
Is privity required to bring an action for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability?
Not in the majority of states, however, it is required in a minority of jurisdictions.
Do breach of warranty actions require negligence by the defendant?
No.
May warranties be limited through the use of disclaimers?
No, disclaimers will not be enforced. Courts don’t want manufacturers to unilaterally limit buyers power of redress.
What elements are not needed in a breach of warranty action?
- Don’t need expert testimony.
- Don’t need negligence.
- Don’t require privity.
- The warranties need not be expressed.
- Warranties cannot be disclaimed.
- Since negligence is not applicable, there is no standard of care.
What are the facts of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.?
- Greenman (P) saw a demonstration of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool, and he studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer, Yuba Power Products Inc. (D).
- Greenman’s (P) wife gave him a Shopsmith for Christmas.
- While properly using the Shopsmith to lathe a piece of wood, Greenman (P) was injured when the wood flew out of the machine and struck him.
- Almost a year later, Greenman (P) sued Yuba Power (D) and the retailer based on breach of implied and express warranty and negligence theories.
- Evidence at trial showed that the Shopsmith was defectively designed and constructed.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the retailer but against Yuba Power (D) based on a negligence and/or breach of express warranty theory.
- The court denied Yuba Power’s (D) motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict.
- Yuba Power (D) appealed.
What is the rule from Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. / Is a manufacturer strictly liable when an article he places on the market has a defect that causes injury?
- A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.
- Implicit in a product’s presence on the market is a representation that it will safely do the jobs for which it was built.
- To establish a manufacturer’s liability in a products liability case, it is sufficient that a plaintiff prove that he was injured while using its product in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and manufacture of which the plaintiff was not aware that made the product unsafe for its intended use.
What are the policy reasons for imposing strict liability in products liability?
- The purpose of imposing strict liability on the manufacturer is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.
- Although strict liability has usually been based on the theory of an express or implied warranty running from the manufacturer to the plaintiff, the abandonment of the requirement of a contract between them, the recognition that the liability is not assumed by agreement but imposed by law, and the refusal to permit the manufacturer to define the scope of its own responsibility for defective products make clear that the liability is not one governed by the law of contract warranties but by the law of strict liability in tort.
What are some reasons to plead breach of warranty as well as strict liability?
- Differences in damages.
- Proof required.
- Jury sympathy (i.e., breaking of a promise with warranty)
What elements are required in an action for strict products liability?
- (1) a defective product;
- (2) use of the product in the manner it was intended to be used;
- (3) injury as a result; and
- (4) knowledge by the manufacturer that the product was to be used without inspection for defects.
Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A is the relevant source for strict products liability.
(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and
(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §2 Categories of Product Defects
A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product:
(a) contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product;
(b) is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe;
(c) is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.
What are the facts of Rix v. General Motors Corp.?
- Michael Rix (P) was injured when his pickup was rear-ended by a new GMC (D) two-ton truck, which had been equipped with a water tank after sale.
- Rix (P) sued GMC (D) on a theory of strict liability.
- The parties stipulated that the accident occurred because of brake failure caused by a brake tube dislodging from a booster unit.
- Rix (P) argued that there was a manufacturing defect in the tube when it left the assembly line.
- Rix (P) also argued that the brake system was defectively designed.
- According to Rix (P), a truck of this size should have been equipped with a dual braking system in order to provide extra braking power.
- GMC (D) contended that the tube was defective because it had been altered after it left the GMC (D) assembly line.
- GMC (D) also maintained that the single braking system was not unreasonably dangerous, and that the accident would have occurred even if a dual braking system was present.
- Rix (P) appealed a jury verdict for GMC (D), arguing that the jury was not properly instructed on the law of manufacturing defects.
What is the rule for manufacturing defects / Is a manufacturer strictly liable if it sells a product in defective condition unreasonably dangerous and it causes injury?
- Sellers are strictly liable for manufacturing defects that reach the consumer without substantial change in the defective condition.
- Under a manufacturing defect theory, the essential question is whether the product was flawed or defective because it was not construed correctly by the manufacturer:
- Manufacturing defects, by definition, are imperfections that inevitably occur in a typically small percentage of products of a given design as a result of the fallibility of the manufacturing process. A defectively manufactured product does not conform in some significant aspect to the intended design, nor does it conform to the great majority of products manufactured in accordance with that design.
- Stated differently, a defectively manufactured product is flawed because it is misconstrued without regard to whether the intended design of the manufacturer was safe or not. Such defects result from some mishap in the manufacturing process itself, improper workmanship, or because defective materials were used in construction.
What if the manufacturer could show it had the best quality control in the industry, and only one in a million products would have a defect and there was no way to detect the defects?
- That would constitute reasonable care and thus no liability under negligence.
- Under a strict liability standard the manufacturer would be liable.
Why do most manufacturing defects cases settle?
- The π has to prove that the product deviated from the seller’s design or from the seller’s other products of the same design, not what specific conduct of the manufacturer led to that defect.
- Because it is easily provable that a product has a defect different from all other products of that type.
What is a defense often used by a manufacturer in a manufacturing defect case?
That the defect occurred after the product left the manufacturer’s control.
What are the facts of Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co.?
- Prentis (P), a foreman in a automobile dealership’s parts department, utilized a battery-powered forklift to lift an engine into a truck’s cargo bed.
- The Yale Manufacturing (D) forklift was a stand-up variety, rather than a riding machine with a seat, and it was operated by lifting its handle up and down.
- When the machine experienced a power surge, Prentis (P) lost his footing and fell to the ground.
- The force of the fall alone caused multiple fractures to Prentis’s (P) hip.
- Prentis (P) sued for an alleged design defect, arguing that Yale (D) should have provided a seat or platform for the operator of the forklift.
- The trial judge refused to instruct the jury on breach of warranty.
- Rather, the judge instructed the jury on a single theory of negligent design.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that both instructions should have been given.
- In this appeal, the Court of Appeal was reversed and the trial court affirmed.
