(M-Torts4) Product Liability

Invoked when a defective product, for which an appropriate D is responsible, injures an appropriate P.

IF strict liability is otherwise applicable,
THEN ANY P injured while using a defective product may recover damages from an appropriate D.
This includes purchasers and consumers, and their families, friends, guests, and employees.

Someone NOT USING a defective product can invoke strict liability against an appropriate D
IF it was reasonably foreseeable that such a P might be injured by the defective product.

Examples:
1) bystanders (e.g., P was a pedestrian injured when an automobile manufactured by D with defective steering went out of control and struck him) and
2) rescuers (P attempted to rescue a third person who was endangered by a defective product manufactured by D).

1) A person who ASSEMBLES COMPONENT PARTS into a finished product is strictly liable for DEFECTS in the components used.
2) The MANUFACUTRER of the component part is also strictly liable for defects in the component.
IF the finished product is defective not because of a defect in a component part but because the assembler put the component to a use for which it was not suited,
THEN the component manufacturer is generally not liable,
UNLESS the component manufacturer knew or should have known that his component was being misused.

3) A person who REBUILDS or RECONDITIONS used goods is often held to be the equivalent of a manufacturer, and may be subject to strict liability for injuries caused by defects in the rebuilt or reconditioned goods.

Retailers and commercial lessors are subject to strict liability for defects in NEW GOODS that they sell or lease.
Commercial lessors are subject to strict liability for defective used goods leased, but there is a split in authority as to whether a retailer of used goods is strictly liable for defects in those goods.

Almost all jurisdictions impose strict liability where a product is "in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous."

A product may be considered dangerously defective when
1) it is accompanied by an inadequate warning-for example,
2) its message to the user (e.g., a child who cannot read) fails to sufficiently describe the danger, OR
3) it fails to mention all dangers.

Certain products are regarded as so obviously dangerous that a warning is considered unnecessary (e.g., a sharp knife) .

That the injury is attributable to the D is usually proven by showing that the defect that injured P was in existence at the time it left D's control.
It may be necessary in this regard to establish that intermediate handlers (distributors and suppliers) did not mistreat or alter the product.

IF a P uses a product in a manner that is neither intended nor foreseeable,
THEN she has misused the product and it cannot be defective.

Some jurisdictions that have adopted a comparative negligence system as to negligence also apply that system to strict liability.
P's wrongful conduct that contributes, along with the defective product, to his own injury reduces his recovery in some amount.
This is usually limited to misuse/abnormal use or independent negligence situations.

As initially conceived, the P's unreasonable conduct was not a defense to strict products liability UNLESS
1) the P knew of the defect,
2) comprehended the risks posed by the defect, AND
3) voluntarily elected to expose himself to those risks.

That is, only assumption of the risk was a defense to strict products liability.

The elements of a product liability claim based in negligence are the same elements that are part of the negligence cause of action in general.

On a warranty products liability theory, liability arises from the fact that a product is not as represented (i.e., it breaches a warranty made either expressly or impliedly by D).

P must establish that:
1) a warranty existed as to the product AND
2) the product does not conform to the warranty.

The UCC provides that a P/buyer must notify a D of the breach of warranty within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered it.
This provision is often not applied where P is a bystander who suffers personal injury.

1) the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product, OR
2) even if there is a warning, where feasible alternative designs are available with less harmful consequences.

A product is defectively dangerous if it is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product's characteristics.