#17544 - Torts Products Liability Notes - Tort Law

PRODUCTS LIABILITY

1. Duty

Products Liability is a matter of Strict Liability

• Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co of Fresno (Manufacturing defect)

  • Facts:

    • Escola (P) was a waitress who was filling a restaurant refrigerator with Coke bottles that had been delivered to the restaurant at least thirty-six hours earlier. As she placed the fourth bottle in the refrigerator, it exploded in her hand, causing severe injuries. Escola (P) claimed that Coca Cola (D) was negligent in selling a bottle that, because of excessive pressure or because of some other defect in the bottle, was dangerous and likely to explode.

  • Holding:

    • A manufacturer is strictly liable when a product it puts on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection, had a defect that causes injury to human beings

  • Reasoning:

    • Loss Minimization

      • Manufacturer rather than the customer is in the best and mostknowledgeable position to minimize the losses that arise out ofthegeneral use of itsproduct

    • LossSpreading

      • Ability of thedefendant producer to spread thedamages among many consumers, thus cushioning the overwhelming misfortune of the injured person or his family

    • Elimination ofproof complication

      • StrictLiability rule switches the residual risk ofunavoidable accidents from theplaintiff to thedefendant

      • innegligence, plaintiff had toprove breach - plaintiff often has noidea ofwhathappened tothe product before it reached her

      • Res IpsaLoquiturdoesn’t help all the way

        • creates a presumption ofbreach, but presumptions can be disproven = the jurydoesn’t have tobelieve them

          • Don’t allow some defendants toescape liability when they happen to have someproof = the rest is strict liability

      • Here defendants are in a position to figure out alternatives (plaintiffcan’t do that when establishing breach), they are the only ones that know what other precautions they can take and what their process is like

    • Foodstuffs Analogy

      • there used to be a distinction between foodstuffs that were sold insealed containers and those that were not

        • For goods sold insealed containers, the law exempted the retailer fromliability but allowed direct suit against the manufacturer, onnegligence theory

      • Criminal strict liability statutes = for selling adulterated food

        • If this kind of liability for foodstuffs, then civil strictliability for manufacturers forfoodstuffs and similar products

    • Corrective Justice

      • Once plaintiff establishes the casual connection to the defendant’s act, then prima facie, the loss should be placed upon the party who created that condition, not the party who suffered from it

      • With products liability, thedefendant is never inpossession ofthedangerousproduct when it causes injury so that the older privity limitation becomes asensible way forliability to track possession, save in those fewcases in which a party out of possession is in a better position to avoid the loss

    • Times are Changing

      • In today’s world of mass production, consumers no longer can investigate or inspect for themselves the soundness of a product, but must rely on the manufacturer. The manufacturing process is often inaccessible to the public. The manufacturer uses advertising, trademarks, and warranty programs to create a justifiable faith in the quality of its products.

      • An injured person is not ordinarily in a position to overcome this evidence or affirmatively prove the existence of negligence.

    • There is no mutuality of risk here – one person is taking the risk

• McPherson v Buick Motor Co - Cardozo(Manufacturing Defect)

  • At the time, consumers could sue manufactures of productswhen thoseproducts were inherently dangerous

    • In this case, the wooden wheel of a cartshattered as soon as the driver left the lot

    • He said, carts too are inherently dangerous ifnegligently made

      • Can you think of a product that is not inherently dangerous ifnegligently made?

        • Virtually allproducts are inherently dangerous if negligently made

        • Then all products impose a duty to theirconsumers

• Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc. (Design Defect)

  • Plaintiff’s wife gave him a Shopsmith combination power tool manufactured but he defendant, that could be used as a saw, a drill and a wood lathe. After reading the brochure, and in the court of working the lathe, a piece of wood suddenly flew out and hit the plaintiff, injuring him. There was substantial evidence that the plaintiff’s injures were caused by defective construction.

  • Plaintiff recovered damages from the manufacturer for negligence and breach of both express and implied warranties.

    • Defendant was trying to say that shouldn’t be the case because didn’t give timely notice of injures

      • Court said no - manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing it to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have defect that causes injury to a human being

        • Manufacturer is not in a place to determine scope of his own liabilities, there is strict liability - not a matter of contract or relationship between manufacturer and consumer.

          • To establish liability, it was sufficient that the plaintiff proved that he was injured while using the tool in a way that it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and manufacture of which plaintiff was not aware that made the tool unsafe for its intended use

• Engberg v. Ford Motor Co

  • plaintiff’s husband was killed when he drove his station wagon, purchased two weeks earlier from defendant, off the highway into a ditch. No other cars involved, and parties were unable to establish the precise sequence of events leading up to the decedent’s death. The plaintiff supported her claim that the defendant’s seatbelt was of insufficient strength to withstand the impact of the crash by expert testimony and evidence that the bed was found “buckled but broken” after the crash.

  • Defendant’s expert witness testified that the boot and seat belt could not in any way come into contact with frame of the seat. Based on the type and location of the cut, it was his opinion that the seat belt had been moved form where it was originally placed by the manufacturer. More evidence in case that the decedent did not properly adjust his seatbelt before the crash.

  • Court held that the case was properly left of the jury because defendant could not show that plaintiff’s version of the case was contradicted by undisputed physical facts, and further rejected defendant’s contention that it was pure speculation to conclude that the decedent would have survived if the seat belt had remained intact

• Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby

  • Plaintiff’s pitcher, was struck by a line-drive hit by his opponent batter, using an aluminum Air Attack 2 bat. The bat was manufactured by the defendant, and contained a pressurized air bladder which, according to designer, substantially increases the speed at which the ball leaves the surface of the bat.

  • Court held that once increased speed was established, the plaintiff could reach the jury. “Absent other factors (none are suggested) it follows that the ball must have reached the appellant sooner than if Correa had used a bat other than Air Attack 2.” The reaction time for the plaintiff was below the minimum time recognized by the NCAA.

Who is under this duty of strict liability

• Manufacturers, Sellers, Wholesalers

• Bystanders

  • Can sue the original manufacturers

  • Bystander able to claim having been hurt by a process that was no sense her making because she never used the product – strong case

• 402A Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer

  • (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if

    • (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and

    • (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.

      • Note: Also to Retailer, Wholesaler, Creator of Partts, All Sellers of product

      • Not amateur sellers or second hand sales unless they refurbish it

      • Not servicers – like pharmacy – but CVS would count

        • That’s negligence

  • (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although

    • (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and

    • (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller

  • Caveat

    • The Institute expresses no opinion as to whether the rules stated in this Section may not apply

      • (1) to harm to persons other than users or consumers;

      • (2) to the seller of a product expected to be processed or otherwise substantially changed before it reaches the user or consumer; or

      • (3) to the seller of a component part of a product to be assembled.

  • Comment:

    • f. Any kind of seller, but not someone that sold something once - no isolated sales. Also not sales of stocks

      • He needs to be found of negligence

    • g. Product at the time it leaves seller’s hand in a condition not contemplated by...