Must prove that defendant was at fault that some action the defendant took or

Must prove that defendant was at fault that some

This preview shows page 3 - 6 out of 8 pages.

Must prove that defendant was “at fault”, that some action the defendant took or did not take failed to meet the standards expected of the “reasonable” manufacturer In a design case: plaintiffs must show that the product was designed without proper care or in a way that made the product dangerous. (Hire designers without experience, fail to follow industry standards, failed to test the design…) Plaintiffs must prove that the manner of assembly was not carefully done, did not meet normal industry standards, or that the product was packaged in a way that was hazardous to users Failure to warn: plaintiffs must show that the manufacturer knew or should have known that the product was dangerous to uses and that the users were unlikely to realize the danger
Image of page 3
Strict Product Liability - allows a person injured by a defective product to win a lawsuit against the manufacturer without proving fault or lack of due care Greenman V Yuba Power Products, Inc. Greenman purchased a tool from Yuba and 2 years later it permanently damaged him. He sure the manufacturer and retailer for breach of express and implied warranties. The jury went against the manufacturer alone. Both appealed because they were unsure if it was negligence or warranty theory Theory of strict product liability. Defendants said the plaintiff was out of time to appeal. There were alternative ways to design and construct the machine that would have prevented the accident. “A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being”. Neither were negligent. Elements of strict liability: Product was defective Product was unreasonably dangerous Seller was “in business” of selling these products Product reached the consumer without alteration in the distribution chain Restatement (447) 2d: The seller is engaged in the business of selling the product It is expected to and reaches the user without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold The above will apply even if the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product and The user on consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller 1-Only applies to products sold in a defective condition. Easier to show “defect” than fault 2-the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to the user. Creates a danger “beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer” who purchases the product with the “ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics” 3-the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold only applies to those engaged in the business of selling such products Restatement 3d: Product is defective: Manufacturing defects Design defects Defective warnings or instructions
Image of page 4
Manufacturing defects- as occurring “when the product departs from its intended design, even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product Risk utility test- weighs the utility of the product’s design against the risks of the design A product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Fall '08
  • Staff
  • Contract Law, Implied warranty, Product liability

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture