Product Liability

Product Liability 1. Issues due to non-compliance 2. Issues due to failure of product Quality the totality of features and characteristics of a product that bear on its ability to satisfy a stated or implied needs or free from deficiencies Product feature a property which is possessed by a product and which is intended to meet certain customers need. Failure- product performance including aesthetic aspects cannot satisfy the ultimate users or intermediate buyers. Non-compliance product is not performing per the set requirements which may be defined by government, trade association. Product Liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those product cause. Case : MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Reason of Product Liability Law 1. Both life and chain of commerce kept getting more complicated. 2. Consumers began responding to advertisement, often ordering product through mail. 3. Warranty law began to develop 4. Privity requirement elimination( it is believed to have had the greatest impact upon the development of product liability). First overruled in 1916 Details of product liability: 1. Crashworthiness Authorities in action: 1. CPSC in USA (Consumer Product Safety Comission) 2. PAPEX in EU Theory of Product Liability 1. Negligence It is the failure to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring someone to whom you owe the duty of care. (Constructive knowledge) a. The defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff b. The defendant breached that duty of care c. The defendants breach of duty was the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury d. The plaintiff suffered a compensable injury Contributory negligence is the actions of an injured person that may have also caused that persons own injuries. Comparative negligence 2. Breach of warranty Warranties are statement by a manufacturer or seller concerning a product during a commercial transaction a. A direct contractual relationship between plaintiff as purchaser and the manufacturer as seller

b. Proof of fault and proximate cause in a negligence action or through the proof of privity of contact in a warranty action. Three Types: a. Breach of an expressed warranty b. Breach of an implied warranty of merchantability c. Breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. 3. Strict liability a. Restatement of Torts, second b. Restatement of Torts, third three distinct categories of product defect i. Manufacturing defects ii. Design defects iii. Warning defects iv. The legal standards appropriate to each c. Develop separate rules for special products and product markets d. All parties in the chain of distribution of a defective product are strictly liable for the injuries caused by that product and they may be sued under the doctrine of strict liability in tort. e. It to force producers to internalize the external costs they impose on society. The manufacturers is forced to take into account, when deciding how much to product the product, the harm caused by it. Plaintiff must prove a. The seller was engaged in the business of selling the defective product b. The seller sold the product in a defective condition c. The product was unreasonably dangerous because if its defective condition d. The use of the defective product caused plaintiffs injury. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. 4. Market Share Liability when multiple defendants contributed to manufacture of defective product. each defendant is proportionate to the share of the market held by each respective defendant

Concept of Defect
1. Manufacturing Defect a. Properly assemble a product b. Properly test a product c. Adequately check the quality of a product 2. Design Defect Design defects occurs where the product design is inherently dangerous or useless no matter how carefully manufactured. a. Structural Defects b. Lack of safety features 3. Packaging Defect A defect that occurs when a product has been placed in packaging that is insufficiently tamperproof. a. Manufacturers owe a duty to design and provide safe packages for their products

b. Failure to meet this duty subjects the manufacturer and others in the chain of distribution of the product to strict liability. 4. Failure to Warn Hazards that cannot be eliminated or mitigated by design need warning to draw user alertness to avoid or reduce the chance of injury a. Failed to put adequate and unambiguous warning in proper location b. Failed to highlight user to keep the warning

Claims
Requirements 1. Photograph 2. Recreation of the incident 3. Expert examination and testing to determine a causal connection between the product, the occurrence, and the persons injuries.

Theories of Recovery
1. Reasonable care for an expert manufacturer of such a product 2. Manufacturer is presumed to be an expert in the field 3. Reasonably foreseeable at the time a product is made and sold

Duty of Care
1. Manufacturer is charged with the duty of design, manufacture, and marketing commensurate with an experts awareness of the particular products 2. Risk of harm from a product must be foreseeable

Defenses to Product Liability

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Supervening event Generally know dangers Assumption of the risk Government contractor defense Misuse of the product Statute of limitations Contributory & comparative negligence