Products Liability - Defects Flashcards
1
Q
Products Liability - Focus
A
- concept that products liability is the intersection of two activities: making of the product and use of the product
- for products liability suit, need to focus on DEFECT, since that deals w/ making of the product (manufacturer not responsible for misuse)
- defect is the attribution rule - activity cost goes to manufacturer
2
Q
Kinds of Defects
A
Two:
- manufacturing defect (particular product messed up)
- design defect (all the product is messed up)
3
Q
Manufacturing Defect
A
- one product in particular is flawed
- one item deviated from normal output of manufacturing line
- theoretically pretty easy to establish - just need to compare to other units
4
Q
Design Defect
A
- all products with the particular design are problematic
- generally more difficult to show
5
Q
Tests for Design Defects
A
Two options:
- expectation test
- balancing test
6
Q
Expectation Test - General Concept
A
- did risk associated with product design offend expectations of ordinary consumer?
- derived from contract (implied warranty of safety)
- hindsight-oriented
- very strict test b/c deals w/ user expectations (also b/c don’t need to show there was an alternative available)
7
Q
Expectation Test - Cons
A
- many products for which ordinary consumer doesn’t have sufficient knowledge for safety expectations
- tends to eliminate liabilities for observable (expected defects)
- > perverse effect b/c manufacturer who makes manifestly hazardous product escapes liability
8
Q
Green v. Smith & Nephew - Facts
A
- 2001
- Green = healthcare technician -> developed latex allergy b/c of using def’s latex gloves from 1978-1989
- pl alleges defective design b/c def made gloves w/ high levels of allergy-causing latex proteins
9
Q
Green v. Smith & Nephew - Holding + Reasoning
A
- court stresses that def’s lack of knowledge doesn’t take away liability
- def tries to argue pl’s claim of “offended expectations” isn’t applicable w/ such a complex product, but court disagrees - > says not about how the product functions, but overall performance expectation
- fairness rationale which goes towards holding def liable (vs. no risk awareness means no background safety/CCA arg)
- but, also idea that award to pl would incentivize def to do research in the future
10
Q
Green v. Smith & Nephew - Rules
A
- doesn’t matter whether manufacturer knew about the risk of its design
- consumer expectation doesn’t depend on particular scientific knowledge of the product’s function - it’s an overall performance expectation test
11
Q
Balancing Test
A
- did risks of design outweigh design’s utility? (is design’s risk justified?)
- oriented towards prudent manufacturing
- doesn’t go beyond negligence, but can be administered by hindsight
- concept is if you’d known then what you know now, would you still have been okay to proceed with the design? (basically hindsight BPL - assuming you’d better understood the risks of loss) - if we know in hindsight you violated the balancing test, then you’re liable
12
Q
Factors for Balancing Test
A
- availability of substitutes
- likelihood + magnitude of risk
- obviousness + public expectation of danger (consumer assumption of risk)
- ability to avoid danger through warnings
- ability to eliminate danger w/o undue expense
13
Q
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing Inc - Expectation Test vs. Balancing Test
A
- Prof highlighted passage in class that says design defect should be decided on consumer expectation test if possible, + if that test fails to provide a complete answer, should look at whether reasonable manufacturer would continue to market product in the same condition w/ knowledge of the potential dangerous consequences revealed by the suit
- hindsight test necessary to preserve fundamental difference between negligence + strict liability
14
Q
Henderson v. Ford Motor Co.
A
- 1974
- pl sues over a design defect in her car that made her unable to brake
- both options def had for the design appear to be non-negligent
- majority holds no design defect based on balancing (vs. dissent points out expectations test would have been a clear basis for liability)
15
Q
Tabieros v. Clark
A
- 1997
- reasonable expectation test low (danger in using this particular product, vehicle used to move shipping containers, obvious -> liability unlikely under consumer expectations test)
- but balancing test would have led to liability