Products Liability Module Flashcards
MacPherson v. Buick - automobile manufacturer sold car with a defective wheel to a dealer who sold it to MacPherson
a manufacturer of articles that are not inherently dangerous by that may become dangerous when improperly constructed owes a duty of care to anyone beyond the purchaser who might foreseeably use the articles, when it is reasonable to expect no further tests will be performed
there was no privity in this case
Escola v. Coca Cola - waitress restocking fridge when coca cola bottle shatters in her hand, alleges excessive pressure
res ipsa applies as long as no evidence that bottles changed condition after they left the manufacturer’s possession
Escola primary themes
- defective products can be handled by res ipsa
- manufacturers are always in a better position to prevent the harms and control the risks, so they should be held liable
- consumers can recover damages for defective products from retailers, retailers can get compensation from manufacturers
- warranties provided under contract law provide for strict liability and tort law and contract law should treat injuries the same
what is products liability?
the law governing liability for those who manufacture or sell products that cause injury to person or property
the pre-1960s products liability
- plaintiff had only negligence and warranty actions for products that caused injury
- courts not happy that plaintiffs were not recovering for personal injuries
- privity requirement began to erode in both negligence and warranty so ppl able to recovery for injuries
- courts begin by suggesting liability without proof of fault (negligence), “stict” liability
why did products liability arise in the 1960s?
- manufacturing boom causes rise in products liability cases
- mass assembly lines would cause harm
privity
the direction connection between the buyer and the seller/manufacturer of the product
warranty
a contract that runs between the buyer and the seller of a product, direct connection is privity
MacPherson court
liability will be imposed in absence of privity of contract
- type of product that is certain to place life and limb in peril if negligently made
- D knows the product will be used by one other than the immediate purchaser
- D knows the product will be used without further inspection
** knows = probably, not merely possible; based on foreseeability
MacPherson takeaway
the rules was an enormous departure!
- no longer requires evidence of privity of contract for liability (previously was only products inherently dangerous)
- there was a long dissent that takes issue with how far a leap this opinion went to eradict privity requirement
- helps injured plaintiffs and puts manufacturers on notice of what types of liability they might be exposed to even when they have not directly sold their product to injured plaintiff
Escola court
the theory asserted in this case is negligence and uses res ipsa to prove it
- proves through “excessive pressure”
Traynor’s concurrence:
- suggested courts should adopt a strict liability theory for product cases where a product is placed on the market knowing it will be used without further inspection
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products - manufacturing tool while be used malfunctioned causes serious head injuries to plaintiff
by placing a product on the market, a manufacturer becomes strictly liable for a defect in the product that causes that injury to ultimate user of the product
lack of privity in this case because wife bought the saw as a gift for husband
neither party argued for a strict liability theory
Greenman v. Yuba Court
Traynor wrote the majority –> court finally adopts a strict liability theory
after greenman the R2T 402A is adopted
special theory of seller of product for physical harm to use or consumer
402A (1)
(1) one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the use 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
402A(2)
(2) the rule stated in subsection (1) applies although –> [strict liability part of restatment]
- (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and
[this part of the rule eliminates of negligence]
- (b) the user or consumer has not brought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller
[this part removed privity requirement]
402A notes
- “unreasonably dangerous” language because there are a lot of defective products on the market that are not dangerous (ex: broken ipad)
- every single word in 402A has been litigated
- this section does not make a distinction between types of defects (as compared to R3T)
- most jurisdictions use 402A rather than R3T
402A comment g
defective condition: one “not contemplated by the ultimate user which will be unreasonably dangerous to him
402A comment i
unreasonably dangerous: dangerous to an extent beyond which the ordinary consumer who purchases it with ordinary common knowledge to the community as to its characteristics
thee types of defects
- manufacturing defect
- design defect
- inadequate warning (failure to warn)
Malcolm v. Evenflo Co. - child safety seat is ejected from the car when the left belt of the seat broke off during the rollover –> manufacturing defect
a manufacturer is liable under a strict liability claim of defective design under the consumer expectations test if its product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner or is dangerous to an extend beyond that anticipated by the ordinary user
Warner Fruehauf Trailer v. Boston - mechanic injured when a liftgate malfunctioned and fell on him –> design defect
a manufacturer is liable under strict products liability claim of defective design in a risk-utility jurisdiction if a plaintiff proves that the likelihood and magnitude of the injury caused by the product is greater than the cost of a reasonable alternative design
Richter v. Limax International - mini-trampoline did not warn of stress fractures in ankles after intended use
a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for negligence when it has reason to know through ongoing review of studies, research, reports, and scientific literature that its products may be dangerous during use and fails to warn the consumer
defective under 402A
- PA Supreme Court has rejected the R3T sections 1-3
- this section does not mention 3 types of defects
- most jurisdictions are still in a 402A