1
Chapter 6
Product and Strict Liability
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
6.1 Defect in Design
Yes, Doncasters, Inc. is strictly liable for the death of the deceased parties of the crash of the Twin Otter
airplane because of a defect in the design of the blades used in the engine of the crashed airplane. The
plaintiffs introduced sufficient evidence through expert witnesses to establish that Doncastors had
knowledge that the aluminide coating and base metal alloy used in its engine blades were not safe for use
in the engine of the crashed airplane. The jury issued a verdict that held Doncastors strictly liable for the
6.2 Defect in Manufacture
Yes, Western Manufacturing is strictly liable for Dorel Roman’s injuries based on the defect of
manufacture. The court of appeals reviewed the evidence presented at trial and agreed with the jury’s
finding that the mobile stucco pump produced by Western was defective in construction. The jury found
that the stucco pumps produced by Western did not contain a design defect but that the stucco pump that
6.3 Design Defect
Yes, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. is strictly liable to Amanda Maddox for failing to design seat belt
restraint systems to safely protect heavier persons such as her from injury during vehicle collisions.
Evidence showed that Nissan tested its seat belt restraint system using test dummies weighing
approximately 171 pounds. The company designed its restraint system to protect persons weighing
compensatory damages and $2,500,000 in punitive damages against Nissan. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
v. Maddox, 2013 Ky. App. Lexis 133 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2013)
6.4 Supervening Event
2
supervening event that relieved Cincinnati from product liability. The U.S. court of appeals stated, “For
defective design claims, the law exempts a manufacturer from liability if modifications or alterations to
the product are responsible for the defect and are the intervening and superseding cause of the injuries.”
The court also held that the inclusion of warnings on the machine satisfied Cincinnati’s duty to warn. Had
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2013)
6.5 Failure to Warn
Yes, Taser International, Inc. was negligent in failing to warn the police of the dangers of discharging the
Taser X26 at a suspect’s chest. Tasers emit a strong electrical current designed to be discharged at
Turner’s chest, near his heart. Turner died of cardiac arrest. Taser’s manual did not warn that applying the
taser X26 near a subject’s heart posed a risk of ventricular fibrillation, a cause of cadiac arrest. The jury
found that Taser had negligently failed to warn users of X26 of the dangers of deploying the taser’s
electrical current in proximity to the heart. The court awarded $5.5 million in compensatory damages to
6.6 Design Defect
The court held that the Extreme Sno-Tube II that was designed and produced by Intex Recreation
Corporation had a design defect that caused the accident and resulting injury to Higgins. The court found
that there was a design defect because the Sno-Tube could rotate while going downhill and had no
of severe injury. We do not think the Sno-Tube is a product that is necessary regardless of the risks
involved to the user.” The court held that a reasonable consumer would expect that a snow sliding product
would not put him or her in a backward, high-speed slide. The court held that the Sno-Tube was
defectively designed and found Intex Recreation Corporation strictly liable for causing the accident in
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
3
6.7 Ethics Case
no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious or if the hazard associated with the product is
common knowledge to the ordinary observer or consumer. Although Jolie Glenn testified that it never
crossed her mind that her daughter could die from carbon monoxide poisoning, she did testify that she
knew a person should never leave a child unattended in a car with the engine running. She also testified
carbon monoxide. Glenn v. Overhead Door Corporation, 935 S.2d 1074, 2006 Miss. App. Lexis 60
(Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2006)
6.8 Ethics Case
that the defendants had properly warned Thompson of the dangers associated with adjusting a beater on
mixer while it was operating. The court also noted that the defense of a generally known danger relieved
the defendants of liability. The U.S. court of appeals upheld the U.S. district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants. In this case, it is a somewhat difficult issue as to whether the plaintiff
U.S. App. Lexis 22530 (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2012)