Bagley 5th Ed.

1
CHAPTER 10 Product Liability
2
Theories of Recovery

• Breach of Warranty.
• UCC Warranties.
• Privity of Contract - a contractual relationship
  must exist for a Plaintiff to recover.

3
Theories of Recovery

• Negligence To prove negligence in a products
  case, the injured party must show that the
  defendant did not use reasonable care in
  designing or manufacturing its product or in
  providing adequate warnings.
• Case 10.1 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916).

4
Theories of Recovery

• Strict Liability in Tort absolute liability for
  an unreasonably dangerous product.
• To recover, Plaintiff must prove
• He or his property was harmed by the product
• The injury was caused by a defect in the product
• The defect existed at the time the product left
  the defendant and did not change substantially
  afterwards.

5
Theories of Recovery

• Strict Liability in Tort. Rationale
• Law should protect consumers against unsafe
  products.
• Manufacturers should not escape liability simply
  because they typically do not sign a formal
  contract with the end-user of their products.
• Manufacturers and sellers of products are in the
  best position to bear the cost of injuries caused
  by their products.
• Strategy and Punitive Damages.
• Employees Memos and Testimony.

6
What Makes a Product Defective?

• Manufacturing Defect a flaw in the product that
  occurs during manufacture.
• Design Defect inadequate design or poor choice
  of materials that make a product dangerous to
  users.

7
What Makes a Product Defective?

• Inadequate Warnings, Labeling, or Instructions
• Causation RequirementPlaintiff must show that
  Defendant both breached a duty to warn and that
  the failure to warn was the proximate cause of
  the Plaintiffs injuries.
• Bilingual Warnings.
• Case 10.2 Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. (1993).
• Unavoidably Unsafe Products.

8
Who May Be Liable?

• Manufacturers of Component Parts.
• Case 10.3 Jimenez v. Superior Court of San
  Diego County (2002).
• Wholesalers.
• Retailers.
• (Typically depends on state).

9
Defenses

• Assumption of Risk when a person voluntarily
  and unreasonably assumes the risk of a known
  danger, the manufacturer is not liable for any
  resulting injury.
• Comparative Fault damages reduced by the degree
  to which the plaintiffs own negligence
  contributed to the injury.
• Obvious Risk.

10
Defenses

• Misuse of the Product.
• Case 10.4 James v. Meow Media, Inc. (2003).

11
Defenses

• State-of-the-Art Defense no safer product design
  is generally recognized as being possible at the
  time of manufacture.
• Preemption Defense.
• Case 10.5 Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.
  (2000).

12
Other Limits on Liability Tort Reform

• Limitations on Joint Liability.
• Caps on Punitive Damages.
• Penalties for Frivolous Suits.

13
Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

• Statutes of Limitation.
• Statutes of Repose cut off the right to assert
  a cause of action after a specified period of
  time from delivery of the product or completion
  of the work (typically 10 years).