Q was there warrantypromise btwn manuf and ultimate purchaser henningsen

Q was there warrantypromise btwn manuf and ultimate

This preview shows page 49 - 51 out of 52 pages.

Q: was there warranty/promise btwn manuf and ultimate purchaser (henningsen- chryslre gave disclaimer for warranties) Strict Liability – encompasses any claim that might be brought in negligence or warranty PL is the most significant place where our country began adopting SL as the rule for accidents PL really isn’t SL anymore a. 3 rd restatement builds negligence back in to PL – it’s a mess of both neg and SL b. No duty: no foreseeability, no relationship btwn D and victim (bystander) PL in other areas of Tort Law: o Property torts : concern for the consumer’s legitimate expectations for her physical safety o Ultrahazardous activities: large-scale production sometimes poses unavoidable hazards o Workers comp: modernist sense of the propriety of risk spreading and the concern for an uneven playing field between the individual and the large commercial enterprise PRECURSORS/ 1. MANUF DEFECT “DUTY of D while applying Res Ipsa Loquitor” (for SL) ESCOLA v. COCA COLA BOTTLING CO . (CALI) – res ipsa used for SL BUT Traynor’s concurrence stating SL 49
bottle exploded in her hand (note: person not real consumer) ; cause of action – personal injury argued under negligence, P used res ipsa loquitur to prove breach BUT Traynor thinks otherwise! Duty on bottler to make appropriate tests before they are filled (“infallible” testing on the glass by manufacturer – which is why they weren’t brought in the case) Majority Rule : Res Ipsa Loquitur applies if: (1) D had exclusive control of the thing (i.e. charging and inspection of bottles) causing the injury and (2) the accident is of such a nature that it ordinarily wouldn’t occur in the absence of negligence by the D o Modern view of (1) is that D must have had control at time of alleged negligent act, but not necessarily at the time of the accident provided P proves due care between Ds control and the injury *The REAL Rule of the case Traynor’s concurrence : NOT a Res Ipsa Case (1/600 bottles get checked) BUT a SL case Liable IF: 1) places product on market 2) product has defect 3) mf knows product used w/o inspection 4) Porduct causes injury during normal use (he is worried about the fact that bottles can break in the absence of negligence) ** mfr FAULT NOT REQUIRED!!! o Even if no negligence, public policy demands responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health – risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer – still limited by causation ! (but-for – the defect in the negligently manufactured/handled bottle there would be no injury; proximate – risk created by D) WHY SL ARG??? manufacturer owes consumers high level of safety, is in the best position to take care, and is least cost avoider o SEBOK EMPHASIS: “Its evident that manuf. Can anticipate some hazards & guard against recurrence, as public cant. Those who suffer injury from fective products unprepared to meet its consequences” o WHY: i. Selller can think of likelihood of every batch of products ii. Seller can Insure against event of accident insurance iii.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture