Products Liability Flashcards
(8 cards)
Two ways to think about strict liability
1- Traditional- who should pay? Wrongdoer should pay innocent victim
2- Posner New Age- What’s the cheapest way to avoid accidents…cost benefit analysis
Winterbottom (Privity)
Company contract with buggie company and buggie driver. Driver was hurt due to negligence of the buggie company
Rule: A plaintiff cannot bring tort claims against a defendant for nonfeasance that resulted from a contract which plaintiff was not privy to.
Court held: Plaintiff cannot sue on the contract, he cannot sue in tort claiming that Defendant owes a duty to him.
Outdated- see Macpherson
MacPherson v. Buick
Rule: A manufacturer has a duty of reasonable care when it introduces into the marketplace an article, the negligent construction of which would be certain to cause imminent danger, where the manufacturer has knowledge that the article will be used by someone other than the buyer without new tests.
Court held: ii. Expand exceptions to Privity Limitation so that manufacturer is not simply responsible for product defects that are known to be “imminently dangerous,” but is also responsible for defects that are “discoverable” by manufacturer through the exercise of reasonable care.
Escola v. Pepsi
i. Plaintiff hurts her hand when Coke bottle she was holding exploded due to excessive gas.
ii. Judge Traynor “calls to arms for radical expansion of strict liability” to govern manufacturer’s liability for product defects.
Traynor creates an absolute duty.
If a product is made and put on the market , there is an absolute duty of care
Deep pocketed manufacturer should pay, not the innocent victim.
Implied Warranty Theory (Henningsen)
Man’s wife was injured in a car accident .
Court held: Court finds manufacturer of car liable for breach of warranty within products liability although the plaintiff was not privy that contract.
Barker v. Lul Engineering
Dominant view
Has to know there is a design defect.
- fails to perform as safely as one would expect
- relevant factors , the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in design
Rule: A product is defective in design if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or if, in light of all relevant factors, the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.
Campo v. Scofield
Onion topping machine:
Rule: For purposes of products liability, a manufacturer is not required to guard against injury from a patent danger or from a source that is manifestly dangerous.
Held: In some cases, the very nature of a product is sufficient to warn users of its dangers. A buzz saw, for example, is inherently dangerous, and its dangers are obvious to an ordinary user.
Volkswagen of America v. Young
The decedent’s car was hit from behind by a 1967 Ford being negligently driven by William Benson. The collision pushed the decedent’s car forward. As a result, the seat bracketing pieces and seat adjustment mechanisms broke away from the car, and the decedent was hurled into the car in front of him.
Rule: An automobile manufacturer is under a duty to use reasonable care in the design of its vehicle to avoid subjecting the user to an unreasonable risk of injury in the event of a collision.
Held: As an automobile manufacturer, Volkswagen had a duty to use reasonable care to avoid unreasonable injury to Young’s decedent in the collision. An automobile manufacturer is under a duty to use reasonable care in the design of its vehicle to avoid subjecting the user to an unreasonable risk of injury in the event of a collision.
