Products Liability

Modern SL (or “SL”)

Manufacturing defect: SL

• Proof of manufacturing Defect

• RST 3d §3 Circumstantial Evidence supporting inference of product defect

• It may be inferred that the harm sustained by the P was caused by a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution, without proof of the specific defect, when the incident that harmed the P:

• 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

• Speller v. Sears Roebuck

• P contended that his house burned down due to a fire that started in a refrigerator manufactured by the D. D claimed it was due to a stove/grease fire and won summary judgment. Appellate court reversed, citing the P’s three expert witnesses that all agreed the fire started from the fridge, they noted that the issue was one of fact for the jury since the fire damaged the evidence.

Design defect: SL?

• Volkswagen of America v. Young

• P injured when, after her car was hit, the seat came unbolted from the floorboard which caused her “second collision.” P contended that the seat was defectively designed. D argued that intended purpose of an automobile does not include its participation in collisions despite the manufactures ability to foresee such events.

• Court held that while the intended purpose of an automobile may not be to participate in collisions, the intended purpose includes providing a reasonable measure of safety. Manufacturers must not create accident proof cars, or even act as insurers, but must design them under a standard of reasonableness. Court holds that design defects are under a negligence standard and will not apply if the danger inherent in the particular design was obvious or patent to the user of the vehicle.

When is design “defective”?

Reasonableness

Re-introduces negligence

Consumer expectation

• (Barker v. Lull Engineering) – P was driving a fork lift that fell on sloping terrain and was seriously injured. P argued it was designed defectively. D argued that it was and was in line with industry standards.

• A product may be found defective in design if the P demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

• Jury was misinformed that the loader must be ultra hazardous or more hazardous than other loaders

• Jury was also misinformed that the defectiveness of the product must be evaluated in light of the product’s “intended use” rather than the product’s “reasonably foreseeable use”

• (Kelly) Consumer expectation test – a manufacturer may not be held liable for design defect on a risk-utility analysis unless the gun malfunctions.

Risk-utility (foreseeability element?

• (Barker) Does the risk of danger inherent in the challenged design outweigh the benefits of such a design?

• A jury may...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts Outlines.