Seeing, as I've just taken the bar and have so much information in my head, I thought I'd share the more useful tidbits. Today's lesson is strict products liability, what you all know as "Defective Products" suits.
This situation is where a person buys or is given a product, and uses it, and gets hurt by it because the product is defective in some way. Due to the average victim's inability to "prove" negligent behavior on the part of the seller/manufacturer, since seller behavior in the design of the product or in the manufacturing process are both things highly guarded by manufacturers, the court in the early 70's created a doctrine for allowing a Plaintiff to establish a valid claim for liability where he could show the following. The court held that where a Plaintiff can show:
1. That the Defendant is a merchant (that is, someone who is in the business of selling or manufacturing the kind of goods that the Plaintiff used)
2. That there was a defect in the item that rendered it unreasonably dangerous
3. That the defect existed at the time the product left the Defendant's "hands" (factory, store, etc)
4. That the Plaintiff is a foreseeable user of the product, and the plaintiff's use of the product was foreseeable by the Defendant
Then the plaintiff could recover damages. In order to prove element number 2, the plaintiff must establish what kind of defect it is. If it is a manufacturing defect, that is, that particular product he used was defective because of a screw-up in the manufacturing process, then the buyer must simply establish that through evidence and testimony of what the screw up was. If it is a design defect he wants to establish, he must show that (1) the product could have been designed more safely, and (2) the safer design wouldn't have changed the cost of making it by much, and (3) the the safer design would have been equally as effective and useful for the use the product was designed for.
The last element is usually where the Plaintiff fails, since while the plaintiff is almost always considered a foreseeable user, his use is often not foreseeable. As an example, if I were to buy a can opener, and used it to wipe my butt, and then suffered deep cuts, I would not be able to recover, EVEN if I was able to prove the other elements, because my use is not a foreseeable use of a can opener.
This folks, is the doctrine used in all such cases you are familiar with. The McDonald's case (inadequate warning labels fall under the design defect argument), and the drainage cases, and so on.
This situation is where a person buys or is given a product, and uses it, and gets hurt by it because the product is defective in some way. Due to the average victim's inability to "prove" negligent behavior on the part of the seller/manufacturer, since seller behavior in the design of the product or in the manufacturing process are both things highly guarded by manufacturers, the court in the early 70's created a doctrine for allowing a Plaintiff to establish a valid claim for liability where he could show the following. The court held that where a Plaintiff can show:
1. That the Defendant is a merchant (that is, someone who is in the business of selling or manufacturing the kind of goods that the Plaintiff used)
2. That there was a defect in the item that rendered it unreasonably dangerous
3. That the defect existed at the time the product left the Defendant's "hands" (factory, store, etc)
4. That the Plaintiff is a foreseeable user of the product, and the plaintiff's use of the product was foreseeable by the Defendant
Then the plaintiff could recover damages. In order to prove element number 2, the plaintiff must establish what kind of defect it is. If it is a manufacturing defect, that is, that particular product he used was defective because of a screw-up in the manufacturing process, then the buyer must simply establish that through evidence and testimony of what the screw up was. If it is a design defect he wants to establish, he must show that (1) the product could have been designed more safely, and (2) the safer design wouldn't have changed the cost of making it by much, and (3) the the safer design would have been equally as effective and useful for the use the product was designed for.
The last element is usually where the Plaintiff fails, since while the plaintiff is almost always considered a foreseeable user, his use is often not foreseeable. As an example, if I were to buy a can opener, and used it to wipe my butt, and then suffered deep cuts, I would not be able to recover, EVEN if I was able to prove the other elements, because my use is not a foreseeable use of a can opener.
This folks, is the doctrine used in all such cases you are familiar with. The McDonald's case (inadequate warning labels fall under the design defect argument), and the drainage cases, and so on.
Facebook
Twitter