Strict liability: products liability

Question 1

Service provider exception

Answer 1

In products liability suits, medical providers are not treated as providers of goods—i.e., they are not treated as sellers of defective products.

Thus, strict liability does not attach to medical providers.

Question 2

Proper defendants

Answer 2

A plaintiff may sue both:

• the manufacturer of a defective product and
• the retail sellers of the defective product—but a casual seller is not subject to strict liability.

So long as a seller is in the business of selling the product or something that contains the product, she is subject to strict liability for a defect in the product:

• even if she was not responsible for the defect in any way; and
• even when the product is not purchased directly from her.

Question 3

Learned intermediary rule

Answer 3

The manufacturer of a prescription drug typically satisfies its duty to warn the consumer by informing the prescribing physician of problems with the drug rather than warning the patient.

Question 4

Liability of component suppliers

Answer 4

The commercial supplier of a component that is integrated into a product during its manufacture is not liable unless the component itself is defective or the supplier substantially participates in the integration process and the integration of the component causes the product to be defective.

Question 5

Elements of a product liability claim

Answer 5

In a product liability claim, the plaintiff must prove that:

(1) The product was defective, whether by way of manufacture, design, or failure to warn;
(2) It was defective when it left the defendant’s control; and
(3) The defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries when the product was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way.

Question 6

Appropriate plaintiffs

Answer 6

Appropriate plaintiffs include:

• purchasers;
• other users of the product; and
• bystanders who suffer personal injury or property damage.

Question 7

Failure to warn

Answer 7

A failure-to-warn defect exists if:

• there were foreseeable risks of harm, not obvious to an ordinary user of the product; and
• which could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable instructions or warnings; and
• the failure to include the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.

But the manufacturer need not include:

• warnings about obvious or patent dangers; or
• include instructions about how to conduct ordinary activities.

Question 8

Design defect: consumer expectations test

Answer 8

In a jurisdiction that applies the consumer expectations test, a product contains a design defect if it was dangerous beyond the expectations of a reasonable consumer.

Question 9

Design defect: risk–utility test

Answer 9

Under the risk-utility test—in a majority of jurisdictions and under the Third Restatement—the plaintiff must prove that:

• a reasonable alternative design was available to the defendant; and
• the failure to use that design has rendered the product not reasonably safe.

The alternative design must be economically feasible.

Question 10

Manufacturing defect

Answer 10

A manufacturing defect is a deviation from what the manufacturer’s design that causes harm to the plaintiff.

The test for the existence of such a defect is whether the product conforms to the defendant’s own specifications.

Question 11

Proper defendants: auctioneers

Answer 11

An auctioneer of a product generally is not subject to strict liability with respect to the products auctioned.