Products Liability Flashcards
Product Defects
- A product may be defective because of a defect in its design, or manufacture, or because of a failure to adequately warn the consumer of a hazard related to the foreseeable use of the product
- Cases can be decided by negligence, strict liability, or by brach of warranty, but are generally ruled by strict liability
To recover for a products liability a plaintiff must prove and plead that:
- 1) the product was defective (in manufacture, design, or failure to warn)
- 2) the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control; and
- 3) the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way
Contract or Tort?
General rule is that a plaintiff cannot recover in tort when the basis of their harm is purely based in economics, with no harms to persons or property. Liability may be found in contract, but not in tort.
Defective Product
- ## A product is defective when, at the time of the sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or inadequate instructions or warning (i.e., failure to warn)
Manufacturing Defect
- A product contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.
- The test for the existence of such a defect is whether the product conforms to the defendant’s own specifications
Defective Product (402A): Selling a Defective Product in a Dangerous Condition
One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user 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:
- The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
- It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold
i. The rules stated in subsection (1) applies though
- The seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation of the sale of his product, and
- The user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller
Circumstantial Evidence Supporting Inference of Product Defect
It may be inferred that the harm sustained by the plaintiff was caused by a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution, without proof of a specific defect, when the incident that harmed the plaintiff:
- Was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of product defect; and
- Was not, in the particular case, solely the result of causes other than product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution
Categories of Product Defects
- A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective and designed, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product:
a. Contains a manufacturing defect (strict liability)
b. Contains a design defect (negligence)
c. Contains defective warnings (negligence)
Design Defect
- A product is defective in design when the foreseeable risk 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, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe
- Two part tests: Consumer expectations/risk+utility
Consumer Expectations: Design Defect Test #1
- 1) Consumer Expectations: Does the product fail to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner?
Risk-Utility Test: Design Defect Test #2
Do the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design?
The π must prove that a reasonable alternative design was available to the ∆ and the failure to use that design has rendered the product not reasonably safe.
The alternative design must be economically feasible.
Prescription Drugs
- Under the learned intermediary rule, 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 informing the patient taking the drug.
- Exceptions:
i. If the manufacturer is aware that the drug will be administered without the personal intervention or evaluation of a healthcare provider, such as when a vaccine is administered through a mass inoculation; and
ii. As a result of a federal statute, in the case of birth control pills
The Duty to Warn: Defective Warnings
A product is defective because of an adequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.
*No need to warn of every mishap
Ask:
- Is there a duty to provide a warning?
- Does the warning adequately communicate the risk of harm?
Adequate/Inadequate Warnings
- Adequate: sufficiently alerts the user of the dangers of a product (describe the potential risks of using the product in clear and unambiguous language, state specific consequences of using a product, apprise the user of the ‘level of potential’ of the most serious consequences
Inadequate: does not sufficiently alert the user of the dangers (so vague that only some users will understand the dangers of using the product)
Inference of Defect
A plaintiff is entitled to a res ipsa loquitur-like assumption that a product defect existed if the harm:
- 1) was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of a product defect; and
- 2) was not solely the result of causes other than a product defect
*this inference is frequently applied in cases involving a manufacturing defect when the product is lost or destroyed as a consequence of the incident that caused the plaintiff’s harm
