Products Liability

Front 1

3 Types of products liability?

Back 1

1.manufacturing defects [ production flaws]
2.design defects
3.information defects
** is a product defective in the 1st place & what does a plaintiff need to prove to establish such a defect

Front 2

what are manufacturing defects?

Back 2

-a case may be submitted to the jury under both negligence and strict tort liability theories even though all of the plaintiff’s evidence is circumstantial

Front 3

for recovery under strict liability a plaintiff need only prove that

Back 3

1. the product was in fact in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for its intended use
2. such defect existed when the product left the control of the defendant
3. the defect was the proximate cause of injury

Front 4

res ipsa

Back 4

o requirements of res ipsa loquitur are that the defendant was in control of the situation; that the injury would not normally occur absent some sort of negligence, and that the plaintiff did not contribute to injury. After these 3 elements are proved there is an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant

Front 5

2nd restatement - manufacturing defects

Back 5

Consumer expectations

Front 6

3rd restatement - manufacturing defects

Back 6

Divided into categories of product defect
- product departs from its intended design (need to show intended design and that product does not meet it = difficult to prove)
Aberration – just not like prototype that has been developed (inherently adopts idea of consumer expectations but tries to simplify it)

Front 7

What are product defects?

FOREIGN v. NATURAL TEST

Back 7

FOREIGN v. NATURAL TEST
o You should expect anything that is natural that could be in the food itself
•It is something natural to the food it can be expected
•Plaintiff then can only rely on the negligence claim [difficult to prove fault]
•Limitation on food!

Front 8

CONSUMER EXPECTATION TEST

Back 8

CONSUMER EXPECTATION TEST
consumers reasonable expectation is the test of defectiveness
•does not matter if natural or foreign
• what is the ordinary consumer going to anticipate in this situation
•fact finder will make decision

Front 9

what are design defects?

Back 9

-a product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner
o how consumer expectations proved
• plaintiff’s testimony
• jurys general knowledge about safety expectations

Front 10

what is the risk utility test?

Back 10

RISK UTILITY TEST = a product design is defective if the benefits or advantages of the design don’t outweigh the risk inherent in the design
o a product design is in a defective condition to the user or consumer if:
1. it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner OR
2. if the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk inherent in such design

Front 11

Risk utility test for Products

Back 11

o In using risk utility burden shifts from plaintiff to defendant
o Defendant has burden to show its utility to bring product out and cost of alternative v. risk of danger in inherent design

Front 12

2nd restatement - design defects

Back 12

Consumer expectations OR Risk – Utility

Front 13

3rd restatement - design defects

Back 13

Forseeablility & Alternative Design {RAD} reasonably alternative design
[puts burden on plaintiff to come up with reasonable alternative design]
- Trend back to fault based responsibility

Front 14

2 purposes of warning or information defects?

Back 14

-a warning has 2 purposes
1.to cause awareness of danger
•obvious hazards still require warnings because the warning not only notifies persons of the hazard, it also provides notice of less hazardous alternative ways of proceeding
2.to point out less dangerous alternatives

Front 15

2nd restatement - warning / product defect

Back 15

Consumer friendly
-warning meet standard of reasonableness
-warn of foreseeable harm

Front 16

3rd restatement - warning / product defect

Back 16

-back into a fault negligence regime
-nothing about shifting the burden
Forseeability