Strict Product Liability o Strict Product Liability and Public Policy The law

Strict product liability o strict product liability

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 4 pages.

Strict Product Liability o Strict Product Liability and Public Policy- The law imposes strict product liability as a matter of public policy. This public policy reset on the threefold assumption that:
1) Consumers should be protect against unsafe product 2) Manufacturers and distributions should not escape liability for faulty products simply because they are not in privity of contract with the ultimate user of those products. 3) Manufacturers and distribution can better bear the cost associated with injuries cause by their products- because they can ultimately pass the costs on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. States Public Policy- Public policy may be expressed in a statue or in the common law. Sometimes, public policy may be revealed in a courts interpretation of a statue. o The requirements for Strict Product Liability- The bases for an action in strict liability that are set forth in Section 402A of the Restatement of torts can be summarized as a set of six requirements. Depending on the Jurisdiction, if these are requirements are met, a manufacturer’s liability to an injured party can be almost unlimited The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it The defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling (or otherwise distributing) that product) The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective conditions The plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by use or consumption of the product. The defective conditions must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage The good must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained. Providing a defective condition- Under these requirements, in any action against a manufacturer, seller or lessor, the plaintiff need not show why or in what manner the product became defective. 1) The plaintiff does have to prove that the product was defective at the time it left the hands of the seller or lessor. 2) The plaintiff must also show that this defective condition made the product “unreasonably dangerous” to the user or consumer Unreasonably dangerous products- The restatement recognizes that many product cannot be made entirely safe for all uses. Thus, sellers or lessors are liable only for products that are unreasonably dangerous. A court could consider a product so defective as to be an unreasonably dangerous product in either of the following situations: 1) The product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer 2) A less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture