Refers to parties that repetitively engage in the

This preview shows page 16 - 17 out of 17 pages.

refers to parties that repetitively engage in the creation and selling of product, because that is where the business can negotiate, indemnify, etc. Occasionally selling cookies, as long as it is not a regular activity or done for livelihood, does not satisfy "business of selling" and would not be susceptible to products liability. Restatement Approaches to Products Liability § 402(a) -- one who sells a product with a defect is liable, and this liability applies even if the seller has exercised all possible care.Consumer can bring suit against any party upstream even if they do not have privity with those parties. Elements of Products Liability Claim(1) Did ?, a "seller" supply the product?(2) Was the product "defective"?(3) Causation & (4) DamagesNO PRODUCTS LIABILITYNoYesWhat type of products liability claim applies?Defect in Manufacturing100% liability for harms related to manufacturing process issuesDefect in DesignIs this a "consumer expectations" or "risk utility" jurisdiction?Risk utility is the 3rd RS approach--USE THIS ONE FOR EXAMDefect in WarningHood v. Ryobi--warnings should be "clear and simple," placed in an accessible location the ordinary consumer would foreseeably see, and does not require encyclopedic warnings covering all potentialities (an inundation that may actually prove counter-productive)Consumer ExpectationsProduct's design produces a risk in its use due to its operation in a way that could not be expected by the reasonable user1. Product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect2. Defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's possession3. Defect was a 'legal cause' of plaintiff's 'enhanced injury' AND4. Product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner Risk UtilityHigher threshold compared to CE, must show that the product's design was one where jury would find the foreseeable risks of danger inherent in the design outweigh the benefits of the design.A. Not quite like strict liability because there is comparative evaluationB. Reminiscent of the Learned Hand formulaHOWEVER, consumer expectations are still important in determining what the foreseeable risks are in designing the product, so still include that as a factor in risk utility test as well. One way to consider risk is to think about how the ordinary consumer thinks about and interfaces with the product, which affects their calculation of risk. Risk utility often requires expert testimony If there is a reasonable alternative design (RAD) that is cheaper or safer but was not used, that cuts in favor of imposing liability on the businessRisk Utility--Majority TestHigher threshold compared to CE, must show that the product's design was one where jury would find the foreseeable risks of danger inherent in the design outweigh the benefits of the design.A. Not quite like strict liability because there is comparative evaluationB. Reminiscent of the Learned Hand formulaHOWEVER, consumer expectations are still important in determining what the foreseeable risks are in designing the product, so still include that as a factor in risk utility test as well. One way to consider risk is to think about how the ordinary consumer thinks about and interfaces with the product, which affects their calculation of risk. Risk utility often requires expert testimony If there is a reasonable alternative design (RAD) that is cheaper or safer but was not used, that cuts in favor of imposing liability on the businessReasonable Alternative Design (RAD) Analysis? doesn't need to prove their design was the mostsafe, only that the benefits outweighed the risks for the design chosen (Soule v. General Motors)First, must be within the same product type (i.e. van to van, not sedan to van) and relate to the same product feature (i.e. headlight)Second, examine these factors from Soule: (1) impact on production costs;

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture