Design Defect
1. Actual causation
2. Duty = D was legally obligated to not manufacture, sell, or distribute any defective products
3. Breach/“negligence” = Was the product, in fact, defective
4. Harm /Damages
5. Scope of liability/”proximate cause”
Product liability
- Design defects = most likely to be litigated
- Marketing defects = second most likely to be litigated
- Manufacturing defects = least likely to be litigated
Restatement 402A - risk utility
(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.
Exception to risk utility = many products can be overused, to qualify as “unreasonably dangerous” the article sold must be
dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchase it with ordinary
knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics
- We should not use the law to litigate obvious risks
Unreasonably dangerous = contemplated by the ordinary consumer with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to
its characteristics
Case name and Bluebook citation: Parish v. Jumpking, Inc.
Parties: (Who is in the lawsuit? P: Parish
Who sued whom?) D: Jumpking
Procedural History? (How did the Iowa Supreme Court
case get to this court? Trace the Parish sued alleging defective design and negligence in failing to warn of the danger of
legal path from filing to the present using it
matter.)
Relevant factual background? - June 1999 Delbert Parish (P’s brother) and Shelley Tatro bought a 14ft
(What does the court view as trampoline made by Jumpking
important? (e.g., what facts are key - Delbert tried it out by attempting to do a somersault and he nearly fell off the
to the resolution of the legal trampoline
issue(s)?) - So they bought a net to surround the trampoline
- P was visiting the brother on Sept 11, 1999 when he attempted to do a back
somersault on the trampoline
- He landed on his head and became quadriplegic
Issue(s): (What is(are) the key legal
dispute(s)? (the question(s) the
court must answer)).
Rule(s): (What governing In Iowa, to survive summary judgment in a product design defect and failure to provide
principle(s) does the court use to adequate warnings action, a plaintiff must show (1) that the foreseeable risks of harm
resolve the issue? Does it create a posed by the product could have been reduced through an alternative design and the
test or standard?)
provision of reasonable warnings and (2) evidence of an effective alternative product
design and lack of ample warnings.
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.
Holding: (How does the court use Trial court granted D’s motion for summary judgment and this court affirms
the specific case facts and the
broader legal rule to resolve the
legal dispute?)
Reasoning: (How does the court A defect in design is present when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product
explain its resolution of the legal could have been reduced or avoided through use of a reasonable alternative design by the
issue? This is the crux of the case: seller or distributor. There is an exception to the alternative design requirement. The
Restatement recognizes that “the designs of some products are so manifestly
what led the court to rule as it did?)
unreasonable, in that they have low social utility and high degree of danger, that liability
should attach even absent proof of a reasonable alternative design.”
Manifestly unreasonable design (MUD) = allegedly an exception to Restatement (3d)
- If something is ludicrously dangerous this can be applied
- The win rate for MUD is 0% → “sparingly applied”
- Extremely high threshold for this
- If you have a common and widely distributed product, then you need to have a reasonable design and this won’t apply
Parish → standard for warning defect = this product is so commonly used and the warnings were adequate and obvious
Restatement (3d)
- From a fairness perspective, requiring individual users and consumers to bear appropriate responsibility for proper
product use prevents careless users and consumers from being subsidized by more careful users and consumers & the
people who use it improperly get paid and the ones who don’t do not get paid
Case name and Bluebook citation: Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.
Parties: (Who is in the lawsuit? P: Heaton
Who sued whom?) D: Ford Motor Co.
Procedural History? (How did the Oregon Supreme Court
case get to this court? Trace the
legal path from filing to the present
matter.)
Relevant factual background? - July 1963 P purchased a new truck for hunting and other cross-country
(What does the court view as purposes as well as for driving on paved highways
important? (e.g., what facts are key - Drove the truck about 7k miles without noticing anything wrong
to the resolution of the legal - P says truck had never been under unusual stress and prior to the accident had
issue(s)?) barely been off pavement
- Truck was driving on pavement when it hit a 5in rock
- Truck kept driving for about 35 miles & then it tipped over
- The rim was disconnected from the interior portion of the wheel & heavy
damage to the rim
- No evidence of what sort of manufacturing flaw existed
Issue(s): (What is(are) the key legal Did the P provide sufficient evidence to support his allegation that the wheel was
dispute(s)? (the question(s) the dangerously defective?
court must answer)).
Rule(s): (What governing When there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show what design or manufacturing
principle(s) does the court use to defect existed, a plaintiff may still recover in a design defect case if he is able to show to
resolve the issue? Does it create a the jury that the product failed to perform to the reasonable expectations of the user.
test or standard?)
Holding: (How does the court use The trial court entered a judgment of involuntary nonsuit against Heaton → this court
the specific case facts and the affirms
broader legal rule to resolve the
legal dispute?)
Reasoning: (How does the court These are conditions which an average person has to go through → this is a jury question
explain its resolution of the legal The jury is not permitted to decide how strong products should be. Rather, the jury is
issue? This is the crux of the case: supposed to determine the factual question of what reasonable consumers expect from the
what led the court to rule as it did?) product
Dissent: If Heaton had struck a one-inch rock instead of a five-inch rock, the majority
would likely have held that it presented a question for the jury because rocks of that size
are often found on roadways. However, the majority arbitrarily drew a line somewhere
between the one-inch rock and the five-inch rock involved in this case. Whether an
automobile manufacturer has a duty to construct a wheel of such durability as to
withstand the impact of a rock of the size involved here should depend on whether the
manufacturer could reasonably foresee the likelihood that the rock would be encountered
by those driving the vehicle. Such a duty might also depend on the manufacturer’s
warranties and representations made with respect to the durability of the vehicle. A jury
is just as well equipped to determine the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct as it is
when the inquiry is made as to defendant’s negligence. The members of the jury draw
upon their experiences and observations and set up some kind of a standard as a measure
against which to appraise the defendant’s conduct in the particular case. I believe the
question of Ford’s liability was kept from the jury here not because there is a lack of
evidence upon which to sustain a verdict for Heaton, but because the majority wrongly
distorted the concept of the jury’s function.
Consumer expectations test = no evidence (direct or circumstantial) and no RAD, then you can prove that the product did not
perform in keeping with the reasonable expectations of the user
What about advertising? Ford always advertises “built ford tough”. The majority did not think this had water but the dissent did
Case name and Bluebook citation: Soule v. General Motors Corp.
Parties: (Who is in the lawsuit? P: Soule
Who sued whom?) D: General Motors Corp.
Procedural History? (How did the CA Supreme Court
case get to this court? Trace the P sued GM for strict liability asserting that defects in the car allowed a wheel to break
legal path from filing to the present free
matter.)
Relevant factual background? - P’s ankles were injured when her car from GM collided with another vehicle
(What does the court view as - Early afternoon Jan 16, 1984 P was driving her 1982 camaro in the southbound
important? (e.g., what facts are key center lane of Bolsa Chica Road
to the resolution of the legal - Roadway was damp from rain and P was not wearing her seatbelt
issue(s)?) - Another car (1972 Datsun) skidded into the P’s pathway
- Datsun left rear quarter struck the P’s car near the left front wheel
- Speeds at which the vehicles impacted are from 30MPH-70MPH
- Collision bent P’s car frame adjacent to the wheel and tore loose the bracket
which attached the wheel
- This caused the wheel to collapse rearward and inward
- Wheel caused the floorboard area under P to collapse into the P compartment
- P had a lot of injuries, one of which did not allow her to walk with ease
- The vehicle was not retained as evidence, only pictures b/c it was repurposed
- P says the wheel was a manufacturing defect & that in a simulation, most other
camaros do not react this way to impact
Issue(s): (What is(are) the key legal
dispute(s)? (the question(s) the
court must answer)).
Rule(s): (What governing The ordinary-consumer-expectations test is not appropriate in complex design-defect
principle(s) does the court use to cases in which everyday experience with a product does not provide an understanding of
resolve the issue? Does it create a minimum safety expectations.
test or standard?)
Holding: (How does the court use Trial court held for P (in a series of special findings by the jury) and appellate court
the specific case facts and the affirmed. This court also affirms for the P
broader legal rule to resolve the Trial court erred in their instructions on the consumer expectations test, but it didn't cause
legal dispute?) actual prejudice and so its okay
Reasoning: (How does the court The California Supreme Court acknowledged two alternative ways to prove a design is
explain its resolution of the legal defective. First, an injured party may prove that the product fails to perform as safely as
issue? This is the crux of the case: an ordinary consumer would expect. This test acknowledges that for certain, simple
products, everyday use gives users expectations as to minimum safety standards. Second,
what led the court to rule as it did?)
an injured party may prove that a product’s design embodies excessive preventable
danger, meaning that the design’s inherent risk of danger outweighs the design’s benefits
This does not agree
Manufacturer is liable for enhanced injuries = injuries from your car hitting another car & what injuries are from the car screwing
up and making ur injuries worse
How do courts split this up?
- Majority = risk-utility test
- Minority = consumer expectations test
Failure for instruction to warn: whenever a commercial seller markets a product, the seller must provide needed instructions
regarding proper use and must warn of hidden risks
Restatement (2d) = in order to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the seller may be required to give
directions or warning, on the container, as to its use & if you have a good enough warning, you don’t need to change your design
at all → this was picked up by pretty much no one
Restatement (3d) = a product is defective if inadequate instructions are present, and if you have a safer design you can use, you
should use the safer design
Case name and Bluebook citation: Sheckells v. AGV Corp.
Parties: (Who is in the lawsuit? P: Sheckells
Who sued whom?) D: AGV
Procedural History? (How did the US Court of Appeals 11th circuit (1993)
case get to this court? Trace the
legal path from filing to the present Charles is the father or John, who is an incapacitated adult, and Charles is suing on behalf
matter.) of John stating that the helmet was designed and manufactured defectively & that the D’s
failed to warn that the helmet wouldn’t protect you if you got into a crash
Relevant factual background? - John lost control of his motorcycle after hitting debris in the road
(What does the court view as - John was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident which was manufactured
important? (e.g., what facts are key by AGV
to the resolution of the legal - The helmet had a warning stating that some reasonably foreseeable impacts are
issue(s)?) beyond the helmet’s capability
- It also said that the helmet is the most important piece of safety equipment
- Expert testimony said that the helmets were only tested on speed of 15-20MPH
and no helmet around today provides full assurances on speeds of or above
30-45MPH
- But is this available knowledge to the average consumer?
Issue(s): (What is(are) the key legal
dispute(s)? (the question(s) the
court must answer)).
Rule(s): (What governing A manufacturer is not liable for failure to warn when a product contains an obvious
principle(s) does the court use to danger or of which the person using the product knows, or should know, is dangerous.
resolve the issue? Does it create a
test or standard?)
Holding: (How does the court use Granting of summary judgment in favor of AGV is granted in part and reversed in part
the specific case facts and the
broader legal rule to resolve the
legal dispute?)
Reasoning: (How does the court The grant of summary judgment in favor of AGV is affirmed with regard to defective
explain its resolution of the legal design, but is reversed on the failure to warn claim
issue? This is the crux of the case:
what led the court to rule as it did?)
A lot of courts think that warning claims are similar to negligence issues
- The duty in warning claims are reasonable care just like negligence
- Georgia = no duty to warn about open and obvious risks
- If it is that blatant, then the product is the warning
3 other principles of warning:
1. Learned intermediary rule = manufacturers of medicines → their only duty to warn is to physicians (no
duty to the consumer) & most courts do this
a. What about direct-to-consumer drugs with the warnings? In some places this has changed the law
and learned intermediary is no longer the law
2. Heeding presumption (failure to warn and causation) → in some cases, it seems doubtful that a warning
would have affected the P’s behavior even if it had been given
3. Obvious warnings and clutter → if something is open and obvious, you don;t have to warn about it
a. This clutter could lead to more warnings that were placed on the product which would decrease
people reading it
