Strict Liability and Product Liability
49
Greeman v. Yuba Power Product, Inc.
I. Teacher to Teacher Dialogue
Caveat Emptor! Let the buyer beware! Throughout the history of common law, the law’s
Ford or with Mr. Gates? The postindustrial global marketplace has become too complex to expect
a buyer to resolve these issues directly with the seller. The law has stepped in with numerous
remedial measures to help alleviate the shortcomings created by caveat emptor. Products liability
litigation is forcing the manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of defective products to accept
responsibility for the injuries their goods and services have caused.
chooses to conduct business, how it allocates the “costs” of doing that business, and most
important of all, how much value society places on the balancing process between business
latitude and individual rights.
I always open this material with an historical overview that picks up where the story of ultra-
hazardous activity doctrines left off in tort law. As an aside, I tend to teach the strict liability
debate and open-ended discussion on these matters are endless. Products liability remains one of
the great socioeconomic and legal dilemmas of our day. I also like to have my students each
PRODUCT AND STRICT LIABILITY
6
Chapter 6
II. Chapter Objectives
Describe and distinguish among the several legal theories of product liability.
Define the doctrine of strict liability.
III. Key Question Checklist
Does the case at hand come under the purview of products liability law?
Do any traditional tort theories of liability apply?
Is strict liability an issue?
Are any consumer protection statutes applicable?
If products liability is found to be the issue, what measure of liability should be used?
IV. Text Materials
negligence and misrepresentation.
Product Liability: Negligence
To be successful in a negligence action, the plaintiff will have to prove that the defendant’s
breach of a duty of due care was the cause of his actual injuries. Examples of these duties include
the product.
Product Liability: Misrepresentation
Buyers or lessees who are injured due to the intentional or fraudulent misrepresentation of the
quality of an item may receive limited recovery, if they can prove that the seller or lessor
Product Liability: Strict Liability
The early cases rising out of strict liability holdings for ultra-hazardous activities lead to the first
signs of holding businesses liable for the harms created by their products. The second stream of
Strict Liability and Product Liability
51
Landmark Law: Restatement of Torts
The most widely recognized articulation of the doctrine of strict liability is found in Section 402A
The ALI has adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability, which has defined
All in the Chain of Distribution Are Liable – All parties in the chain of distribution are held
Parties Who Can Recover for Strict Liability – Because strict liability is a tort doctrine, privity of
Damages Recoverable for Strict Liability – Personal injury damages are recoverable in all
jurisdictions, but they may be limited as to the dollar amount. Property damages are also
recoverable in all jurisdictions, but economic loss is rarely granted.
Critical Legal Thinking – Punitive damages are assessed when a tribunal believes that a tort
Product Defects
The injured party must prove that the product that caused the injury had one or more types of
defects.
Defect in Manufacture
have a defect in manufacture.
Case 6.1 Defect in Manufacture: Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski
82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855, 1966 Nev. Lexis 260, Supreme Court of Nevada
Facts: Dolinski had purchased a bottle of Squirt from a vending machine where he worked. He
Chapter 6
Issue: Should the State of Nevada judicially adopt the doctrine of strict liability? If so, was there
Decision: Yes to both.
Reason: The supreme court of Nevada both adopted the doctrine of strict liability and upheld the
Case Questions
Critical Legal Thinking: Strict liability is liability without fault, unlike negligence, which is an
possible care.
Business Ethics: It is, of course, possible to add the mouse parts to the soft drink. Further, they
Contemporary Ethics: This idea of all in the chain being responsible developed from the fact that
Defect in Design
Design defects can be used to support strict liability action. The courts will apply a risk utility
analysis, consider the gravity of danger, likelihood of injury occurring, cost of producing safer
alternatives, and the social utility of the product.
automobile.
Failure to Warn
Manufacturers and sellers of products that are inherently dangerous are under a duty to warn
users of these dangerous propensities. Failure to warn is a defect that is actionable under strict
liability.
Decision: Yes.
Ethics Questions: Students will have differing opinions on this question and it is a good one to
use in class because baseball is an easy to understand topic with which most students are familiar.
Defect in Packaging
Strict Liability and Product Liability
53
All parties in the chain of distribution are liable under the doctrine of strict liability if the
Other Defects
Other defects that support a finding of product liability based on strict liability include inadequate
testing of products, inadequate selection of component parts or materials, and improper
certification of the safety of a product.
Defenses to Product Liability
Government Contractor Defense – Contractors manufacturing products to government
specifications will not be held liable if they follow the government-supplied specifications, and if
they warned the government of known dangers and defects in the product.
Abnormal Misuse of a Product – Sellers are relieved of responsibility only if the plaintiff’s
misuse was unforeseeable.
Assumption of Risk – In order to apply this doctrine, the defendant must show that the plaintiff
knew and understood the risk, and then voluntarily assumed it.
Case 6.3 Supervening Event: Cummins v. BIC USA, Inc.
727 F.3d 506, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16800 (2013), United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit
instance.
Statute of Limitations and Statute of Repose – Most states have established a statute of
limitations for bringing actions that will start to run when injury occurs. The period varies from
state to state.
Plaintiff Partially at Fault – Contributory negligence will not bar a plaintiff’s recovery in strict
liability actions. Comparative fault will still allow apportionment of damages between the
plaintiff and the defendant.
Chapter 6
V. Key Terms and Concepts
misused a product.
Assumption of the risk—A defense in which the defendant must prove that (1) the plaintiff
Chain of distribution—All manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, lessors, and
Comparative negligence—A doctrine that applies to strict liability actions that says a plaintiff
damages.
Consumer expectation test—The court standard for evaluating a product’s design based on a
showing that the product is more dangerous than the ordinary consumer would expect.
Crashworthiness doctrine—A doctrine that says automobile manufacturers are under a duty to
product.
Defect in packaging—A defect that occurs when a product has been placed in packaging that
Failure to provide adequate instructions—A defect that occurs when a manufacturer does not
Failure to warn—A defect that occurs when a manufacturer does not place a warning on the
result of those specifications.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.—In this case, the California Supreme Court adopted
Intentional misrepresentation—When a seller or lessor fraudulently misrepresents the quality
Liability without fault—Strict liability is liability without fault. A seller can be found strictly
or her product.
Negligence—A tort related to defective products where the defendant has breached a duty of
Privity of contract—Because strict liability is a tort doctrine, privity of contract between the
Product defects—Something wrong, inadequate, or improper in the manufacture, design,
packaging, warning, or instructions about a product.
defective products.
Strict Liability and Product Liability
55
intentionally or recklessly injured the plaintiff.
Risk-utility analysis—A court may apply this analysis in evaluating the adequacy of a
product’s design.
Statute of limitations—Statute that establishes the time period during which a lawsuit must be
the defect, irrespective of fault.
Supervening event—An alteration or modification of a product by a party in the chain of