Strict Product Liability Flashcards
essential elements
(1) def. is a seller of the product;
(2) def. is in the business of selling the product;
(3) the product is defective; AND
(4) the defect causes injury
Has Mass adopted SPL?
not at comm law. However, the legislature modified the state’s adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code to permit a cause of action for breach of the warranty of merchantability even when the plaintiff and defendant are not in privity (a contract concept). Despite the language of contract, this breach of warranty of merchantability is in all practical respects a tort claim, and the courts have construed it largely in accordance with the Restatement.
In defining a design defect, the Mass. courts look for
(1) foreseeable risk (def. knew or should have known), AND
(2) unreasonable dangerousness,
design defect
where the latter is indicated by a variation on the Wade factors that heavily incorporates alternative design
a) gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design,
(b) likelihood the danger would occur,
(c) mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design,
(d) financial cost of an improved design,
(e) adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.
are consumer expectations dispositive?
no, but may be admitted in proof.
In a warning defect case, the courts similarly look for
(1) foreseeable risk (def. knew or should have known) of substantial harm, AND
(2) failure of reasonable warning of risk
As in strict liability in general (abnormally dangerous conditions), remember that causation is critical in strict product liability.
Don’t be so distracted by “defect” as to forget about causation. A number of “special rules” in product liability are actually just simple applications of causation.
if a product is altered from its original state (argued in Ogle),
liability depends on the foreseeability of the alteration. That rule is simply a restatement of causation to ensure that the defendant’sdefectcaused the injury
another rule states that there is no liability for a warning defect when the dangerous propensity–as of a sharp knife–is obvious to the user
This rule again restates causation, because it is not the warning defect that caused plaintiff to be cut by the knife. The injury would have happened anyway.
Mass. moreover recognizes “the sophisticated user doctrine
an affirmative defense. The doctrine relieves the defendant of liability when the foreseeable plaintiff should be familiar with the product, even if an ordinary consumer would not be. You can imagine the doctrine pertaining in the case of construction equipment sold to a contractor. However, this same result can be reached through the common law test, again, on the principle of causation. The dangerous propensities of a bulldozer are known to the contractor, so the lack of warning about how sharp the bucket teeth are did not cause the injury to plaintiff contractor who ran into them.
