The older the product is, the more difficult it is to prove negligence
on the part of the defendant
State-of-the-art Defense: used to demonstrate that the alleged negligent
behavior was reasonable, given the available scientific knowledge existing
at the time the product was sold or produced; given the state of scientific
knowledge, there was no feasible way to make a safer product
Government Safety Standards: failure to comply with a safety standard
may lead to the imposition of liability, so does compliance with safety
regulations constitute a defense. Following case illustrates one situation in
which the court had to determine whether a corporation could be found
guilty of product liability after the company had complied with
government safety standards:
Donna S. Riegel v. Medtronic Inc.
: Charles Riegel and wife sued
a medical device manufacturer, Medtronic; Charles had a catheter
produced by Medtronic placed in his coronary artery after he
suffered a heart attack; during his heart surgery part of the catheter
burst. Charles claimed that because of the malfunction he suffered
other health problems, so they sued the catheter manufacturer,
claiming Medtronic was negligent in the production and
distribution of the medical device. Medtronic argued that because
the FDA had determined Medtronic’s manufacturing and design of
the devices complied with existing safety standards, it was
protected from suit for product liability. Case went to Supreme
Court after Riegels appealed. Because the Medtronic catheter
complies with the safety standards of the FDA at a federal level,
the only hope for the Riegels would be to look at any possible
additional standards set in their state (states can do this with
medical products) of New York by the Medical Device
Amendments (MDA). Because there are no additional or different
requirements set by the MDA in New York, the case is affirmed in
favor of Medtronic.
Strict Liability in Contract For Breach of Warranty: Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
provides the basis for recovery against a manufacturer or seller on the basis of breach of
warranty. Warranty is a guarantee or a binding promise; may be express warranty (clearly
stated by the seller or manufacturer) or implied warranty (automatically arising out of a
transaction). Either type may give rise to liability; two types of implied warranties may
provide the basis for a product liability accusation
o
Implied Warranty of Merchantability: a warranty or guarantee that the goods
(tangible and moveable) are reasonably fit for ordinary use; arises out of every
sale, unless it is expressly and clearly excluded. The seller must be a merchant
(deals in or has knowledge in the kind of goods sold). UCC says to meet the
standard of merchantability, the goods
1.
Must pass without objection in the trade under the contract description
2.
Must be of fair average quality within the description
3.
Must be fit for the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used
4.
Must run, with variations permitted by agreement, of even kind, quality,
