Products liability

Question 1

Proving manufacturing defect

Answer 1

Product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect

D must anticipate reasonable misuse

Question 2

Proving design defect

Answer 2

D could have made the product safer/removed the danger, w/o serious impact on product’s price or utility (“feasible alternative” approach)

Question 3

Proving defects: gov’t safety standards

Answer 3

Product’s noncompliance w/ gov’t safety standards establishes that it is defective

Compliance (including labeling reqs) is not conclusive evidence that product is not defective

Question 4

Liability based on negligence: breach of duty

Answer 4

(1) D’s negligent conduct
(2) led to supplying of defective product

May invoke res ipsa loquitur

Difficult to hold retailers and wholesalers liable for negligence b/c they can usually satisfy their duty through a cursory inspection

Question 5

Liability based on strict tort liability: PF case

Answer 5

(1) commercial supplier of product (in the chain of distribution of the product)
(2) producing or selling defective product
(3) actual and proximate cause
(4) damages

Question 6

Liability based on strict tort liability: Who can be held liable?

Answer 6

Commercial suppliers, not casual sellers

Only applies to products, not services

Question 7

Liability based on strict tort liability: defenses in contributory negligence states

Answer 7

No defense where P failed to discover the defect or guard against it, or where P’s misuse was reasonably foreseeable

Assumption of risk is a defense

Question 8

Liability based on strict tort liability: defenses in comparative negligence states

Answer 8

Ordinary comparative negligence rules apply: Cn and AOR are treated as items of fault reducing P’s recovery

Question 9

Design defect: “feasible alternative” - when determined?

Answer 9

Whether an alternative design was feasible is determined in light of the conditions that existed at the time the product was designed and built