Products Liability Torts

Question 1

Products Liability Elements (5)

Answer 1

1. P has suffered an injury
2. D sold a product
3. D is a commercial seller of such products
4. at the time it was sold by D, product was in a defective condition
5. the defect functioned as an actual and proximate cause of P’s injury

Question 2

Products Liability Cases (4)

Answer 2

1. Escola v. Coca Cola - P waitress injured by bottle
2. Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods - piece of wood hit head
3. Gower v. Savage Arms - gun accidental discharge
4. Chow v. Beckitt - P injured using lye to clean

Question 3

Products Liability Restatements

Answer 3

402A - general rule statement

R3T 19B - services are not products

402A - Plaintiff must show that product was defective either by manufacturing defect, design defect, warning/instruction defect.

Question 4

Escola v. Coca Cola

Answer 4

P was a waitress and injured when a bottle of coke exploded - RIL may be applied on the theory that defendant had control at the time of the alleged negligent act, although not at the time of the accident, provided the plaintiff first proves that the condition of the instrumentality had not been changed after it left the defendant’s possession - The plaintiff may rely on RIL because bottles of carbonated liquid are not ordinarily defective without negligence by the bottling company

Question 5

Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods

Answer 5

P injured when a piece of wood fell off and hit him in the head - it was sufficient that plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used but a defect in design and manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use

Question 6

Gower v. Savage Arms

Answer 6

(manufacturing/warning defects) P was preparing to unload his gun when it discharged, shooting him in the foot. Rifle is sold in a box that includes a safety manual but P purchased the gun without the box and did not receive the safety manual - P cannot show lack of instructions caused injury, had military training, plaintiff knew of dangerous propensity of the product

Question 7

Chow v. Beckitt

Answer 7

(design defects) P injured using lye to clean kitchen at work - The “risk-utility analysis” in design defect cases: If the utility of a product does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce, then the product is defectively designed - Application of the risk-utility factors is up to the jury and not appropriate for summary judgment.

Question 8

Factors to consider in risk-utility analysis of defective design

Answer 8

1. the product’s utility to the public as a whole
2. its utility to the individual user
3. the likelihood that the product will cause injury
4. the availability of a safer design
5. the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and is reasonably priced
6. the degree of awareness of the product’s danger
7. the manufacturer’s ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes.

Question 9

Manufacturing Defect

Answer 9

The products manufacture diverges from the manufacturers own specifications.
1. Escola - the bottle was not designed to explode, but it did anyway
2. Greenman - sufficient that plaintiff showed he was using Shopsmith in a way it was intended to be used but a design and manufacture defect of which the plaintiff was not aware made it unsafe for its intended use.
2. Gower - the rifle was manufactured with a metal ridge that impaired the functioning of the safety mechanism - one method of proof is to compare the subject to an exemplar.

Question 10

Design Defect

Answer 10

the defect inheres in an entire line of products.
1. a risk-utility analysis is done to consider:
- the products utility to the public as a whole
- the products utility to the individual user
- the likelihood that the product will cause an injury
- the availability of a safer design
- the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced
- the degree of awareness of the products danger
- the manufacturers ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes
2. chow - A design which, at the time it leaves the seller’s hands, is in a condition not reasonably contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.

Question 11

Warning/Instruction defect

Answer 11

A product is defective for failure to warn when safety requires that the product be sold with a warning but the product is sold without a warning or with an inadequate warning.
1. Gower - the rifle was not accompanied with required warnings