Product Liability Notes

Product Liability

Quick Review - Negligence

• What is negligence?

• What are the elements of negligence?

• Explanation of each element.

Defendant's Duty & Foreseeability

• What is the defendant’s duty?

• What is foreseeable?

  • Based on the circumstances and the reasonable person standard.

• What is the reasonable standard of care based on what is foreseeable?

  • How would a reasonable person who is similarly situated act?

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

• Defendant: Buick Motor Co., designer and manufacturer of automobiles.

• Plaintiff: MacPherson, purchased a new Buick from a dealer.

• Incident: One of the automobile's wheels collapsed while MacPherson was driving, causing an accident and personal injury.

• MacPherson sued Buick Motor Co. based on negligence.

• Evidence: Buick could have discovered the wheel's defect with reasonable inspection but did not inspect wheels purchased from a third party.

• Jury held for MacPherson; appeals court affirmed.

• Ruling: Buick Motor Co. liable for failing to inspect the wheels prior to placing them on the new Buicks.

• Legal Principle: If a manufacturer puts a finished product on the market without reasonable inspection, liability follows when foreseeable danger is present.

• Citation: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916).

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) - Key Questions

• Facts:

  • Did Buick manufacture the tires? No.

  • Did Buick inspect the tires? No.

  • Could Buick have discovered the damage to the tires if they had inspected them? Yes.

  • What was Buick’s duty? To conduct a reasonable inspection.

  • Did they have a duty to inspect the tires? Yes.

  • What did the court say? Buick was liable due to the failure to inspect.

Products Liability - Bases for Liability

• Can be based on:

  • Negligence

  • Strict liability

  • Breach of warranty

• The decision to bring a case under negligence or strict liability depends on the circumstances and the jurisdiction.

Products Liability - Parties Involved

• Liability for injuries caused by defective products.

• Who can be liable?

  • Manufacturer

  • Designers

  • Distribution/Retailers

• Who can sue?

  • Injured party

  • Consumers

  • Users

  • Innocent bystanders who are injured

Products Liability and Negligence

• Negligence: Failure to exercise due care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.

• Manufacturers and Designers must use due care when:

  • Designing products

  • Selecting materials

  • Designing the product

  • Testing the product

  • Manufacturing a product

  • Assembling the product

  • Inspecting the final product

  • Warning about the dangers associated with a product

  • Placing adequate warnings that inform users of the dangers of which an ordinary person would not be aware

• What is foreseeable?

Duty of Care

• Duty to design a safe product

• Duty to manufacture properly and according to specification and design

• Duty to label/warn

Fisher Price Little People Case (1971)

• In 1971, a child choked on a figurine from the Little People Play Family.

• Fisher Price had been aware of the choking hazard since 1965.

• The company’s president admitted under oath that no tests had been run to see if the toys could be swallowed or choked on.

• There were four lawsuits involving children choking cases before Fisher Price made the figurines bigger and safer. In one case, the boy’s family received a multi-million-dollar settlement.

• Even then, the company claimed the toys were safe, saying, "We feel that the limited number of injuries associated with these products—which are in wide distribution—can be attributed to no more than coincidence."

Design Defect - Duty and Foreseeability

• What is the duty?

• What is foreseeable?

• The new design:

  • Changed from 2 cm to at least 3 cm in width

  • Notice flatter top compared to the originals

Negligence and Design

• Product designers have a duty to design products that are safe for use.

• Part of this duty is to foresee what could go wrong.

• What harm is foreseeable?

• How could the user misuse the product?

• If the misuse is foreseeable, the manufacturer/designer should anticipate this and work to make the product safer.

• Could certain materials break down after continued use?

Negligence Starts with a Duty

• Designing a product for safety

• What is foreseeable?

  • Table saw with hand guard

  • Two-hand controls

Products Liability - Strict Liability

• Strict liability is a different theory under which an injured party can establish a product liability claim.

• Under a theory of strict liability, a plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant was negligent.

• Instead, the plaintiff needs to establish that:

  • The product was defective or unreasonably dangerous

  • The defect existed when it left the control of the manufacturer or seller

  • And that the defective condition caused the injury

Negligence vs. Strict Liability

Negligence and Strict Liability - Burden of Proof

• Strict liability can be an easier case to make.

• Why does the law make it easier for plaintiffs?

  • Manufacturers are in a better position to make products that are safe and warn users.

  • Consumers are generally not in a position to protect themselves.

• The law shifts the burden to manufacturers and retailers.

Negligence vs. Strict Liability - Focus

Types of Product Defects

• Design Defects, Manufacturing Defects, and Inadequate Warnings, Labeling, or Instructions

Manufacturing Defect

• Deviation from the intended design of the product.

• Quality control testing.

• Encourages higher standards.

• Examples – Screws not tightened

Design Defect

• Manufacturers must balance the functionality, safety, and cost of the product.

• Some products cannot be made totally safe and still be effective

  • Knives

  • Rodent poison

Warnings/Instructions

• Failure to warn of foreseeable risks

  • Hot coffee

  • Roundup – failure to warn of potential cancer risks

  • Samsung Galaxy – failure to warn about risk of battery explosions

Design Defects - The Ford Pinto

• The fuel tank in the Pinto was installed between the car’s rear axle and bumper.

• Even minor rear-end collisions were potentially catastrophic

The Ford Pinto – Design Defect

• Company’s designers were aware of the risk and chose not to redesign the vehicle to save on production time and cost.

• There were fatal accidents caused by this design flaw.

• Ford’s internal cost-benefit analysis was revealed:

  • Reinforcing the Pinto’s rear-end would cost about $11$ per vehicle.

• Ford weighed the total cost to recall and repair against the estimated cost of paying out death benefits to the families of people who died in Pinto crashes.

• Punitive damages were awarded in this case.

Strict Liability - Greenman v. Yuba Power Products

• Plaintiff: Greenman, injured while operating a power tool manufactured by Yuba Power Products, Inc.

• Incident: A piece of wood broke off and struck Greenman in the head.

• Lower Court: Found no negligence or breach of warranty on the part of Yuba Power Products and ruled in favor of the defendant.

• Appeal: Greenman appealed to the California Supreme Court.

• Holding: California Supreme Court held for Greenman.

• Ruling: A plaintiff need not prove negligence or breach of warranty in a product liability case; 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.

• Strict liability covers any defective product that creates unreasonable hazards.

• Public Policy: The costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.

• Citation: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897 (1963).

Strict Liability - Greenman v. Yuba Power Products - Key Points

• The product defect was related to the design and construction of the power tool, which failed to safely contain and control the wood during its operation.

• This case recognized the doctrine of strict liability.

• The court held that the manufacturer was liable for the injuries even though there wasn’t negligence in designing or manufacturing the product.

• Plaintiffs do not need to prove how a product became defective, just that it was defective when it left the control of the manufacturer.

Energy Drinks - Unreasonably Dangerous?

• The product is dangerous beyond the reasonable expectation of the ordinary consumer.

• Consumers are expecting a burst of energy from the caffeine and sugar.

• Not expecting a heart attack or stroke.

Marketing Defects

• Defective warnings

• Failure to warn

• Failure to provide instructions

• Did the manufacturer properly describe how to use the product?

• Did the manufacturer provide adequate warnings about dangers associated with the product?

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

• McDonald's failed to provide adequate warnings about the extreme temperature of the coffee and did not instruct customers on the safe handling of the beverage.

Defenses in Product Liability Cases

• Product Misuse

  • The plaintiff used the product for a use other than the intended use.

  • When the product misuse is foreseeable, the designer/manufacturer must take steps to avoid the misuse.

  • Example: Food processor does not function when the lid is off.

• Alteration of Product

  • The plaintiff altered the product, making it unsafe.

  • Example: Removing safety features

• Assumption of Risk

• Comparative/Contributory Negligence

• Statute of Limitations

Popcorn Lung Case

• Plaintiff developed “popcorn lung” after consuming several bags of microwave popcorn.

• The court held that this was foreseeable misuse related to chemical exposure.

• Issue: No warnings provided.

• Question: What should the manufacturer do to prevent this result?

Who Can Sue and Be Sued?

• Who can an injured party sue?

  • Manufacturer

  • Seller

  • Others in the chain of distribution

• Who can sue?

  • Initial buyer

  • Any reasonably foreseeable party who might have a connection with the product

  • Purchaser of the product

  • Secondary users

  • Innocent bystanders

Key Concepts to Know

• The difference between:

  • Design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn

  • Strict liability

  • Negligence

Important Cases to Consider for Foreseeability in Design

• Little People toys case

• Ford Pinto case