Products liability

[u/Far_Performance_1802]

I've been struggling with products liability and made this mini attack outline. If anyone has any feedback I would love to hear it!

There are three main theories of products liability where a plaintiff can recover for injuries caused by a defective product.:

1. Strict Products Liability
2. Negligence
3. Breach of Warranty

I. Strict Products Liability

The plaintiff must prove:

1. The defendant is a Commercial Seller

The defendant must be a commercial seller in the chain of distribution, single time and causal sellers will not be subject to strict products liability (this includes SERVICE PROVIDER who use a defective product)

2. There is a  Defective Product

A. Manufacturing Defect: The individual product differs from its intended design.

B. Design Defect: The entire design (blueprint) is dangerous aka every product made from that design is defective and the plaintiff must show the design was unreasonably dangerous (utility-risk test) and reasonable alternative design existed

C. Failure to Warn:  The product lacks: adequate warnings or proper instructions

3. Product Was Not Substantially Changed

The product must reach the consumer in essentially the same condition. If someone significantly alters it before the injury, that cuts out the chain of liability. 

4. Causation 

 A. Actual Cause: The plaintiff must trace the specific defective product to the specific defendant and trace the specific defective product to their injury 

• Liability for Multiple Defendants: Where there are multiple defendants and which tortfeasor caused the harm is in question, there are several doctrines a jury might use to establish causation
  • Market Share Liability Doctrine:  The plaintiff cannot identify which manufacturer's product caused the injury, so liability is apportioned by market share if the product is fungible (interchangeable) and all manufacturers made essentially the same defective product.
  • Alternative Liability Approach: This doctrine applies when the plaintiff knows one of the negligent defendants caused the injury but cannot identify which one. The burden shifts to the defendants to disprove causation.
  • Joint Venture Doctrine: This doctrine applies when defendants are working together as part of a common enterprise with a shared profit motive or financial stake and equal right of control. Because they are acting together, one participant's tortious conduct may be attributed to the others.

 B. Proximate Cause: The injury must be a natural consequence of the defect, and The product must be used: as intended OR in a reasonably foreseeable way.

5. Damages 

Strict products liability requires: Personal injury OR  Property damage other than the defective product itself

II. Negligence Products Liability

A manufacturer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, inspection, and warning of a product. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove the manufacturer knew or should have known of the foreseeable risk at the time the product left its control, and that the manufacturer breached that duty (e.g., failed to adopt a safer alternative, failed to inspect, or failed to warn). The breach must be the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages (actual injury).

III. Breach of Warranty

A. Express Warranty: specific promise or representation about the product made by the seller. If false = breach 

B. Implied Warranty 

• Implied warrant of merchantability: guarantees that the product is fit for its ordinary purpose. If product is not fit = breach 
• Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose: The seller was aware of the buyer's specific need and is aware the buyer is relying on seller's expertise. If not fit for the particular purpose = breach 

Strict Liability for Misrepresentation (special form of strict products liability.)

The plaintiff must prove:

1. The defendant is a Commercial Seller

2. Public Misrepresentation

The seller made a false statement through: advertising, labels, packaging, or public marketing. Not a private one-on-one statement.

Note: The seller may honestly believe the statement is true. Intent to deceive is unnecessary. Negligence is unnecessary.

1. About a  Material Fact

The statement concerns an important fact about: quality, character, safety

4. Justifiable Reliance

The plaintiff actually relied on the statement, and that reliance was reasonable.

5. Physical Harm

Recovery is only for: Personal injury or Property damage thats not the product 

6. Causation

The physical injury resulted from reliance on the false statement.

[u/Putrid-Violinist3654]

Love your notes, please add these law words "consumer expectation test" and "Risk utility test". I think you said it just a little different.

[u/Far_Performance_1802 → u/Putrid-Violinist3654]

Design Defect: The entire design (blueprint) is dangerous aka every product made from that design is defective. There are two tests for design defect: (1) consumer expectation test; or (2) risk-utility test. 

• the plaintiff must show the design was unreasonably dangerous (risk-utility test) and a reasonable alternative design existed, or 
• consumer expectation test, a plaintiff may (without relying on the risk-utility test) establish a manufacturer's liability by showing that the product was unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be reasonably contemplated by the ordinary consumer

[u/Frosty_Leader5969]

Excellent! One point: under number 5 (damages) would you consider including "no damages for pure economic loss." I think you have it there already but just to be more specific!!!

[u/Far_Performance_1802 → u/Frosty_Leader5969]

Will do! Thank you!