Products Liability
Problem of people being injured
by “defective products.”
Era of Contract Privity


No liability for injury from defective
product unless person injured was a
party to a contract that was breached;
And then, only if contract contained
provisions allowing for recovery in the
event of injury
Rule of “Caveat Emptor”


“let the buyer beware”
Eventual exceptions for products
considered “imminently dangerous.”
The Era of Negligence

Requirement of privity of contract was first
overruled in 1916 in MacPherson v. Buick
Motor Co.



Plaintiff was injured while driving when the
wooden wheel collapsed;
Plaintiff sued the manufacturer, Buick Motor
Manufacturer argued no duty owed to plaintiff
because no contractual relationship
MacPherson v. Buick,
cont’d


Holding: Court overruled the privity of
contract rule.
Court held: the manufacturer of
anything that could foreseeably harm
a 3rd party if negligently made was
subject to liability.
Negligence Standard in
Products Liability
Duty of Reasonable Care
 Breach of Duty
 Causing Injury
 Resulting in Damages
Basic Rule: One who negligently
manufacturers a product is liable for
any personal injuries proximately
caused by his negligence.

Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof in
Product Negligence Actions
Plaintiff has to show:

Product was defective when it left the
manufacturer’s possession.
Rise of Warranty Rules

Express Warranty: express
representation by a seller or
manufacturer that good have certain
qualities.
Warranties, continued



Implied Warranty: “Warranty of
Merchantability” implied in every contract for
sale of goods.
“Warranty of Merchantability” said: goods had
to be “fit for the ordinary purposes for which
such goods are used.”
If not and someone was injured, then seller
was liable—regardless of whether negligence
could be proven.
Impure Food





With contaminated food, courts went a
step further and
Held manufacturer (not just seller) directly
responsible to injured buyer
No showing of contract required
No showing of negligence required
Very close to pure strict liability (liability
even when there is not proof of negligence)
Modern Era of Strict Liability
for Defective Products

Current Rule: any seller of a product in
a defective condition is strictly liable
in tort for personal injury or property
damage if product is sold in a defective
condition.
Categories of Products Liability

Manufacturing Defects

Design Defects

Warning Defects
Manufacturing Defects



Product deviates from the manufacturing
design causing the product to be more
dangerous than the product as designed.
Strict liability: no proof of negligence or
contract.
Plaintiff has to prove:



Product was not manufactured as designed
Defect existed at time product left factory
Defect resulted in plaintiff’s injury
Design Defects

All of similar products manufactured are
the same and they all have a feature
whose design is defective and
unreasonably dangerous.
Types of Design Defects


Structural Defects: Because of D’s choice
of materials, product had structural
weaknesses which caused it to break or
otherwise become dangerous, or
Lack of safety features: a safety feature
could have been installed with so little
expense (compared to cost of product and
danger without the feature) that it is
defective design not to have safety feature.
Proving Design Defect Cases



One test--Risk-Benefit Test: Do the risks
posed by the design outweigh its benefits?
Many courts fall back on a foreseeability
test (foreseeability of the risks).
More like negligence than strict liability used
in manufacturer’s defect cases
Reasonable Alternative Design

3rd Restatement: a product has a defective
design “when the foreseeable risks of
harm posed by the product could have been
reduced or avoided by the adoption of a
reasonable alternative design by the
seller or other distributor…and the omission of
the alternative design renders the product not
reasonably safe.”
Test used with Food Products

Consumer Expectations Test: a
food product is defective if and only if it
contains an ingredient that a
reasonable consumer would not
expect it to contain.
Warning Defects


3rd category of Product Liability Cases
Even if a product is properly designed
and properly manufactured, the
manufacturer must still give a warning
if there is a non-obvious risk of injury
from using the product.
Warning Defects, cont’d


First issue: whether risk is so apparent
that no warning is necessary. Generally
no duty to warn of obvious dangers or
of risks that are generally known.
Otherwise, “adequate” warning or
instruction, typically of “foreseeable”
risks is required.
Products that are
“Unavoidably Unsafe”

Products that require both warnings and
instructions for use. For example:
pharmaceutical products:



Warnings of side effects
Foreseeable Risks of Use
Instructions for Use
“Unavoidably Unsafe”
Products, cont’d

Plaintiff must prove:


Lack of adequate warning
Causation: that plaintiff would not have
used the product or would not have used
the product in the way it was used if
adequate warning had been given.
Problem for Discussion


Plaintiff is extremely allergic to peanuts.
She eats a peanut butter sandwich and
suffers a severe allergic reaction.
Is the peanut butter manufacturer liable
to her for failing to warn of potential
allergic reactions?
More on Problem


What if plaintiff had eaten a chocolate
pastry made with peanut oil?
Is the bakery where she bought the
pastry liable to her for failure to warn
of the presence of peanut oil?
Rule for plaintiffs who suffer
allergic reactions




If the product contains an ingredient to which
a substantial number of the population are
allergic;
The ingredient is one whose danger is not
generally known, or if know, is one which the
consumer would reasonably not expect to
find in the product;
And the D knew or should have known of the
presence of the ingredient and the danger;
Then the case goes to the jury to decide.
Defenses



Product Misuse
Product dangers were obvious
Assumption of Risk