Products Liability Flashcards
(33 cards)
What are the possible theories of product liability?
(1) intentional
(2) negligence
(3) strict liability
(4) Implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular person
(5) Representation
What must a plaintiff prove in all products liability cases regardless of the theory?
The existence of a product defect. A product can generally be the basis for a claim if is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users.
What are the two types of product defect?
Manufacturing defects and design defects (including inadequate warnings)
What are manufacturing defects?
When a product emerges from a manufacturing process different from the other products and more dangerous than it would have been if it had been made correctly
What are design defects?
All the products of a line are made identically but have dangerous propensities as a result of mechanical features or packaging. This can include inadequate warnings (which must be clear and complete to warn of dangers not apparent to users). For drugs/medical devices, it is enough to provide a warning to the providing physician.
A product that fails to conform to applicable government safety standards, including labeling requirements, is deemed defective (compliance with safety standards is relevant but not dispositive).
What must a plaintiff show to establish a manufacturing defect?
The plaintiff will prevail if they can show the product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer.
What must a plaintiff show to establish a design defect?
The plaintiff must show a reasonable alternative design, meaning a less dangerous modification or alternative which is economically feasible.
What are the consequences of a product’s dangers if misused?
Courts require suppliers to anticipate reasonably foreseeable uses of a product, even if they are misuses.
In products liability suits, is there a requirement of contractual privity between the plaintiff and defendant?
Generally no.
What are consequences of scientifically unknowable risks?
Unpredictable hazards which do not become apparent until the product is marketed (usually side effects of new drugs) will not be actionable if they were impossible to anticipate.
When is a defendant liable in a products liability action on a theory of intent?
A defendant is liable to victims of unsafe product if the defendant intended the consequences or knew to substantial certainty they would occur. The underling intentional tort involved is usually battery.
What are the elements of a products liability action on a theory of negligence?
(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Causation
(4) Damages
Who has a duty of care to a plaintiff in products liability negligence actions?
Anyone who supplies a product to another owes a duty of care, including casual sellers. Usually the seller is a commercial supplier though. Suppliers include the manufacturer of a product or its component parts, assembler, wholesaler, retailer, or dealer. A retailer who labels a product as their own or assembles it from other parts is liable for the negligence of the actual manufacturer.
What must a plaintiff show to establish breach of duty in products liability negligence actions?
(1) negligent conduct
(2) the supplying of a defective product by the defendant
How does a plaintiff prove negligence in a manufacturing defect case?
For manufacturers, the plaintiff may invoke res ipsa loquitur. Retailers and wholesalers owe a duty of care to customers and foreseeable victims but if they buy from a reputable supplier and have no reason to believe the product is dangerous, a cursory inspection will avoid liability.
How does a plaintiff prove negligence in a design defect?
Plaintiff must show that those who designed the product knew or should have known of enough facts to put a reasonable manufacturer on notice about the dangers of marketing the product as designed. Negligence is not shown if the danger becomes apparent only after the product reaches the public.
What is the effect of an intermediary’s negligence in products liability negligence actions?
Intermediary’s negligent failure to discover is not a superseding cause, but if an intermediary discovers a defect and does nothing, that will cut off the liability of the originally negligent defendant.
What damages may a plaintiff recover in products liability negligence actions?
Personal injury and property damage as typical for negligence. The plaintiff cannot recover under a negligence theory for pure economic loss (usually has to go to breach of warranty).
What are the elements of products liability claims based on strict liability?
(1) defendant is a commercial supplier (no casual sellers may be liable, only manufacturers, retailers, assemblers, and wholesalers).
(2) who produced or sold a defective product (which has reached the consumer without substantial change in its original condition)
(3) which actually and proximately cause
(4) personal or property damage
**No element of fault or negligence need be proven and the supplier may be liable even if it had no opportunity to inspect the product
Who may be liable in a strict liability products case?
Only commercial suppliers (manufacturers, retailers, assemblers, and wholesalers) may be liable but any supplier in the chain of distribution may be on the hook (like negligence)
How does a plaintiff show causation in a strict liability for products action?
They must show the harm is directly caused by a defect that existed when the product left the defendant’s control. If this is difficult to trace the plaintiff may rely on a res ipsa like inference that the failure would ordinarily result from a product defect.
What damages are recoverable on strict products liability theory?
Personal and property but not pure economic loss
What presumption is associated with strict liability for defective warning labels?
The presumption that had warning labels been attached, that the plaintiff would have read and heeded them
What defenses exist to strict products liability actions?
Comparative negligence applies
In contributory negligence jurisdictions, a plaintiff’s reasonably foreseeable misuse, failure to discover, etc.. won’t cut off liability
