Product Liability

-​ Burden of proof on the P

-​ 3 theories of liability: negligence, warranty, and strict liability
-​ Different types of defects:
1.​ Manufacturing defects = imperfections that cause a few units of a product to fail to perform their manifestly
intended functions
2.​ Design defects = shared by every unit in the product line which causes the products to be generically
dangerous
3.​ Marketing defects = generic defectiveness affecting an entire product line which include a failure to instruct
the proper way to use the product and does not warn people about hidden dangers (aka failure to warn or
failure to instruct)
Concept of “imminently dangerous products”

Manufacturing Defects
Winterbottom v. Wright (1842)

Winterbottom/General Rule: no liability for D b/c no direct contract between D&P

THEN exception to Winterbottom → Thomas v. Winchester: imminently dangerous to the safety of others then the court will hear
it (exception gets expanded in MacPherson)

Theory 1: Negligence
Case name and Bluebook citation: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

Parties: (Who is in the lawsuit? P: MacPherson

Who sued whom?) D: Buick

Procedural History? (How did the Court of Appeals of NY

case get to this court? Trace the
legal path from filing to the present
matter.)

Relevant factual background? -​ Buick Motor Co. is an automobile manufacturer.

(What does the court view as -​ Buick sold an automobile to a retailer, who sold it to MacPherson.
important? (e.g., what facts are key -​ The automobile contained a defective wheel which had been manufactured by
another company.
to the resolution of the legal -​ The defect was unknown; however, Buick could have discovered the defect
issue(s)?) through a reasonable inspection.
-​ The defective wheel caused the automobile to collapse while MacPherson was
driving, and he was injured.
-​ MacPherson brought suit against Buick for negligence.
Issue(s): (What is(are) the key legal
dispute(s)? (the question(s) the
court must answer)).

Rule(s): (What governing A manufacturer of articles that are not inherently dangerous but that may become
principle(s) does the court use to dangerous when improperly constructed owes a duty of care to anyone beyond the
resolve the issue? Does it create a purchaser who might foreseeably use the articles, when it is reasonable to expect no
further tests will be performed.
test or standard?)

Holding: (How does the court use Lower court entered judgment for MacPherson. This court affirms.
the specific case facts and the
broader legal rule to resolve the
legal dispute?)

Reasoning: (How does the court When it is reasonable to find the defect through a reasonable inspection liability can be
explain its resolution of the legal upheld, even if you are not the manufacturer
issue? This is the crux of the case:
what led the court to rule as it did?)

Is this a design or manufacturing defect? They allege a manufacturing defect

Knowledge of danger must be probable

Knowledge of the danger will be shared by others
Manufacturer will fail the duty of inspection

Exception about “imminently dangerous products”/Thomas v. Winchester holding is getting expanded here
Exception applies:
1.​ If the nature of a thing is such that it is a reasonably certain place life and limb in peril when negligently made
2.​ If to the element of danger will be used by persons other than the purchaser
There has to be *carelessness* involved

How far back in the supply chain can the injured consumer sue?
-​ It might be too remote for liability to go farther back than the car and to the wheel
-​ It could be a proximate cause issue
-​ This is a jury question

Revolution which changes this: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (Cal. 1962)
-​ Is this a design or manufacturing defect? Both
-​ Manufacturing = did it depart from what the manufacturing wanted in a way that made it dangerous?
-​ Design = common to a product line which causes the product to be generically dangerous
-​ As the P they have to prove there was a defect, they were using it in the way that it was made to be used, do not need
to prove carelessness anymore
-​ *Explicitly applies privity free (meaning you don’t have to have a direct contract with someone anymore)
strict liability in tort to manufacturer of defective products*

Theory 2: Strict Liability

Case name and Bluebook citation: Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.
Parties: (Who is in the lawsuit? P: Vandermark (+ Tresham)
Who sued whom?) D: Ford Motor Co.

Procedural History? (How did the CA Supreme Court

case get to this court? Trace the
legal path from filing to the present
matter.)

Relevant factual background? -​ Chester Vandermark purchased a new Ford automobile from Maywood Bell
(What does the court view as Ford, an authorized Ford dealer.
important? (e.g., what facts are key -​ After Vandermark had driven the vehicle about 1,500 miles, he lost control of
to the resolution of the legal the car after he applied the brakes, veered off the highway, and collided with a
issue(s)?) light post and suffered serious injuries to himself and his sister, Mary Tresham.
-​ Vandermark and Tresham brought suit against Maywood Bell and Ford Motor
Company, the manufacturer of the vehicle for breach of warranty and
negligence.
-​ At trial, Vandermark provided an expert on the operation of hydraulic
automobile brakes who testified that, in his opinion, the brakes applied
themselves after failure of the piston in the master cylinder leading to
Vandermark’s loss of control of the vehicle.
-​ The trial court struck the testimony and rejected Vandermark’s offer to prove
that all of the possible causes of the piston failure were attributable to all
defendants.

Issue(s): (What is(are) the key legal

dispute(s)? (the question(s) the
court must answer)).

Rule(s): (What governing An automobile manufacturer and an authorized dealer are strictly liable in tort when
principle(s) does the court use to someone is injured as a result of a defect that was present in the car when the vehicle was
resolve the issue? Does it create a delivered to the dealer and subsequently delivered to the consumer.
test or standard?)

Holding: (How does the court use Thereafter, the trial court granted Ford’s motion of nonsuit as to all causes of action
the specific case facts and the against it and directed a verdict in favor of Maywood Bell on the warranty causes. The
broader legal rule to resolve the jury returned a verdict for Maywood Bell on the negligence claim and the trial court
entered judgment on the verdict. Judgment in favor of Maywood Bell in the negligence
legal dispute?)
claim is affirmed and everything else is reversed
Reasoning: (How does the court They're trying to argue there was reasonable care with maywood bell & that the original
explain its resolution of the legal manufacturer should be the only one with strict liability
issue? This is the crux of the case: The court disagrees
what led the court to rule as it did?)

(NJ) Warranty Liability:

1.​ Every mass produced commercial product should be assumed to have implied warranty guaranteeing consumers
reasonable safety
2.​ A manufacturer may not waive this implied warranty
3.​ The warranty term protects the consumer and consumer’s household

Restatement (2nd) 402(a)

(1) 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
 (a)​ the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b)​ it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
(a)​ the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and
(b)​ the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.

Defective if: manufacturing defect, defective in design, or inadequate instructions or warnings

Flawed Design

Case name and Bluebook citation: Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.

Parties: (Who is in the lawsuit? P: Troja

Who sued whom?) D: Black & Decker

Procedural History? (How did the MD Court of Special Appeals (now Appellate Court of MD)
case get to this court? Trace the
legal path from filing to the present
matter.)

Relevant factual background? -​ Robert Krohn hired Michael Troja to build a bar.
(What does the court view as -​ Troja borrowed Krohn’s radial arm saw manufactured by Black & Decker.
important? (e.g., what facts are key Troja and Krohn removed the saw from its metal base and stand in order that it
to the resolution of the legal could be carried from the basement to the work site.
issue(s)?) -​ The saw’s guide fence and metal base were left behind.
-​ Without its base, Troja placed the saw directly on the floor and rigged a
makeshift guide fence by securing an aluminum level to the saw with clamps.
-​ Troja was attempting to make a cross-cut, guiding the wood with his hand,
when the saw slipped and amputated Troja’s finger.
-​ The instruction manual accompanying the saw properly explained how to
execute a cross-cut.
-​ Troja brought suit against Black & Decker for strict products liability.
-​ At trial, Troja presented an expert who would have testified that an alternative
to Black & Decker’s saw could have been manufactured so that the unit would
not work if the guide fence was not in place.
-​ The trial court refused to allow the expert’s testimony and ruled that Troja had
failed to produce any legally sufficient evidence of an alternative radial arm saw
design or the existence of the technology necessary to produce such a product
in 1976, the year that the saw was made.
Issue(s): (What is(are) the key legal
dispute(s)? (the question(s) the
court must answer)).

Rule(s): (What governing In Maryland, to overcome a directed verdict in a defective design suit based upon strict
principle(s) does the court use to product liability, a plaintiff must show that, at the time the defective product was made, it
resolve the issue? Does it create a was technologically and practically feasible to manufacture an alternative product
incorporating the non-defective features.
test or standard?)

Holding: (How does the court use The trial judge granted Black & Decker’s motion for a directed verdict on the defective
the specific case facts and the design portion of Troja’s strict liability count and this court affirms.
broader legal rule to resolve the
legal dispute?)
Reasoning: (How does the court
explain its resolution of the legal
issue? This is the crux of the case:
what led the court to rule as it did?)

Foreseeable misuse = you have the obligation to manufacture against the dumb shit people are going to likely do to your product

7 Wade factors to test whether a design is unreasonably safe: CB pg 570

1.​ Usefulness and desirability of the product - its utility to the user and to the public as a whole
2.​ The safety aspects of the product - the likelihood that it will cause injury and the probable seriousness if the injury
3.​ The availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe
4.​ The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it
too expensive to maintain its utility
5.​ The user’s ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product
6.​ The user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoidability, because of general public
knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or of the existence of suitable warnings or instructions
7.​ The feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying
liability insurance

Reasonable alternative Design (RAD)? - jury questions

-​ Technological feasibility of manufacturing a product with the suggested safety device at the time the suspect product
was manufactured
-​ Availability of materials
-​ Cost of production
-​ Price to the consumer
-​ Chane consumer will accept it

Restatement (3d) 2(b)

A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is
defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product:
...
(b) is defective in design when the foreseeable risks 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;

RAD requirement on P’s → expensive b/c you have to bring in an expert

★Design defect → diff ways of looking at it★

-​ Risk utility (troja) → sometimes use RAD but not always
-​ Wade test → (7 risk utility factors)
-​ Exception to risk utility = We should not use the law to litigate obvious risks
OR
-​ Restatement (3d) 2(b)
-​ 2(b) = RAD generally required
-​ Exception = MUD (very rare)
OR
-​ 402A = Consumer Expectations