product liability

strict liability in product liability; must prove

1. defect

2. causation

3. scope

4. damages

5. defenses

product liability and RIL

1. instrumentality known

2. accident would not occur without defect

3. instrumentality under exclusive control of defendant

4. plaintiff not at fault

product liability: 3 types

1. manufacturing: strict liability

2. warning: negligence like approach—was warning reasonable?

3. design defects: negligence like approach

product liability: manufacturing defects

deviated from intended design by manufacturer

• strict liability: compare to intended design

• if product was destroyed: do circumstances suggest quality control problem? (THEN USE RIL)

product liability: warning defect

warning was insufficient/not good enough or misleading

• was there a warning at all?

• was content clear and sufficient?

• format: size? placement?

product liability: design defects

came off manufacturing line the way it was designed but was unreasonably dangerous

product liability: design defects—2 tests (APPLY BOTH)

1. consumer expectation test

2. risk/utility test

products liability: design defects: consumer expectation test

product failed to perform safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or reasonably foreseeable manner

products liability: design defects: risk/utility test

P showed product’s design proximately cause injury and defendant failed to establish benefits of challenged design outweigh risk of danger inherent in the design

design defects: factors to consider (risk/utility test)

1. gravity of danger

2. likelihood danger would occur

3. mechanical feasibility of safer alternative design

4. financial cost of improved design

5. adverse consequences to product and consumer that would result from alternative design