If something like commercial goods blow up, brake into pieces, or make malfuntioning, start with 1. PRODUCT STRICT LIABILITY (duty of care not required), then discuss 2. NEGLIGENCE (duty of care required), and 3. IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (for the loss or malfuntioning of the goods itself).
General
Commercial supplier of a defective product may be held strictly liable to foreseeable plaintiffs. To estabilsh product liability, the plaintiff must prove (1) commercial supplier (2) product defect, (3) actual and proximate causation, (4) damages (physical harm e.g., bodily harm or property damage).
Commercial supplier
Commercial supplier is one who (1) places a product in the stream of commerce (2) without substnatial alteration. This includes manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers who deal with such products in the regular course of business. Commercial supplier is under an absolute duty to provide a safe product.
Discuss here whether defendant qualifies as in the business of selling a commercial product (as opposed to a casual or occasional seller of this particular product).
Manufacturing defect
There are 3 types of defects. Don’t pick just one. Analyze all 3.
A manufacturing defect is that the product deviated from the intended design. (whether the product conforms to the defendant’s own specifications)
A product is defective when, at the time of the sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or inadequate instructions or warnings (i.e., failure to warn).
Design defect
Two tests are used to establish a design defect: the consumer expecation test, and the risk-utility test.
Under the consumer-expectation test, a product must meet the (1) minimum safety expectation of an (2) ordinary users (3) when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, including misuses.
Under the risk-utility test, the plaintiff must prove that a (1) reasonable alternative design that is economically feasible was available to defendant, and (2) failure to use that design posed a forseeable risk of harm.
Inadequate instructions or warnings
A warning defect occurs where the manufacturer (1) fails to give adequate warnings (2) as to a known or should-have-been-known danger in the product or in a particular use of the product (3) that is non-obvious. In the "particular use", forseeable risk is involved when using the product, and the risk of a certain use or consequences of doing so must be warned. If it did not indicate the risk or certain use or consequences of doing so, it is insufficient.
Read the exam facts carefully- the defendant might provide a warning about one type of harm, but not warn about the type of harm that actually occurred.
Actual causation
To be the actual cause of plaintiff’s injury, the product must have been defective when it left defendant’s control.
rules are slightly different!
Proximate causation
To be the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, the defect causing plaintiff’s injuries must have occurred when the product was being used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way (misuse is not a superseding cause).
(Warning defect proximante causation) the harm would have not occured if legally sufficient warning had been given.
Misuses: A defendant will still be liable if the plaintiff misuses the product and is injured if that misuse is foreseeable. (not intended but foreseeable misuse → strictly liable)
Damages
Plaintiff must also suffer (1) personal injury or (2) property damage.
There is no recovery for purely economic loss, e.g., (1) malfunctioning of the property itself could be covered by Implied warranty of Machantability, (2) loss of the property itself or consequnetial damage (such as lost profit) could be covered by Negligence damage.
Defenses to Strict product liability
- Assumption of Risk
The purchaser (1) discovered (knew) the defect and (2) unreasonably and voluntarily used the product despite this. No defense if P's neglilgence or misuse was foreseeable.
- Comparative Negligence
May not be effective if P's negligence or misuse was foreseeable.
- Contributory Negligence
No defense
Duty owed (here, plaintiff is in zone of foreseeable harm because they used it.), Standard of Care, Breach, Causation, Damages, and Defenses.
This analysis is the same as a typical negligence analysis and analyzes whether the defendant acted negligently in relation to the product.
All goods for sale carry an implied warranty that the goods will be fit for their ordinary purpose.