Products Liability
Strict liability: if a product is defective, then there is strict liability—don’t have to show warranty, only that P was using product in a way that it
was intended to be used and their injury was caused by a defect that P was not made aware of. Not necessary to show existence of express
Definition
Express When an express warranty is made
breach of by a manufacturer and injury is
warranty caused to P who relied on that
misrepresentation.
Implied breach When a manufacturer puts product
of warranty into stream of commerce, implied
warranty that product is reasonably
safe for use comes w/ that product
Design defect When the foreseeable risks of harm
posed by the product could have
been reduced or avoided by the
adoption of a reasonable alternative
design by the seller, and the omission
of that design rendered the product
not reasonably safe.
Manufacturing Exists when a product departs from
defect its intended design even though all
possible care was exercised in the
preparation and marketing of the
product.
Instructions or When product is defective b/c of
warnings inadequate instructions or warnings
defect when the foreseeable risks of harm
posed by the product could’ve been
reduced or avoided by provision of
reasonable instructions or warnings
AND the omission of those rendered
the product not reasonably safe.
warranty.
Burden on P
Do not have to show that the product is
defective; only have to show that P relied
on the representation made by the
manufacturer
Only have to show that the product was
marketed to P, and through that marketing
it is shown that a “warranty” that the
product would be reasonably safe was
established
P must prove (1) that product was
defectively designed so as to render it
unreasonably dangerous; (2) an
alternative, safer design existed; and (3)
the defect was a producing cause of the
injury for which that plaintiff seeks
recovery.
P must establish that the product deviated
from either the manufacturer’s intended
design or from other products of the same
design. Must also prove that the defect
existed when the product left the hands of
the manufacturer.
P must show that injury was caused by
failure to warn, and that the injury they
sustained was a foreseeable, knowable
risk—if debate over whether risk was
knowable, only have to show ONE study
that shows someone knew something (ex.
asbestos)
Notes
Requires express misrepresentation of
material fact (ex. shatter-proof windshield)—
specific promise made. Not relevant today w/
strict liability.
Usurps express breach of warranty b/c
implied warranty that guarantees reasonable
safety automatically comes w/ the marketed
product.
“Risk-Utility Balancing Test”: whether
reasonable alt. design could, @ reasonable
cost, reduce foreseeable risks of harm posed
by product AND, if so, whether omission of
alt. design rendered the product not
reasonably safe.
 State of the art considered, but when met,
not dispositive that it is a safe product.
When not met, dispositive of defect
Does NOT matter whether the design was
safe or not. Deviation from intended design =
manufacturing defect
Defendants able to introduce state-of-the-art:
evidence that risk was neither known nor
knowable