Strict Product Liability

Strict product liability is one of the three legal theories of product liability. The other two areas – negligence and breach of warranty – include an element of fault, where strict product liability is a liability without fault focusing on the product rather than the manufacturer (although, the manufacturer is certainly on the hook). The injured party needs only to prove that he or she was injured, and that the injury was as a direct result of a defective product. The manufacturer’s due diligence or ordinary care in producing the product is inconsequential when determining liability (Stearns, 2001).

In addition, since the liability attaches to the product, liability becomes a shared liability following the chain of distribution. Thus, strict product liability applies to the manufacturer, seller or lessor of products and the inured party must prove (1) the product is defective upon sale, (2) the defendant sells this product in his or her usual course of business, (3) the product is dangerous due to the defect, (4) the claimant has suffered damage as a direct result of use of the product, and (5) the product has not been altered since purchase (Stearns, 2001).

Strict product liability is a public policy matter that was initially borne as the result of faulty food and, over the years, expanded to now encompass all goods. The assumptions that create the foundation for strict product liability laws is (1) consumers should be protected from unsafe products, (2) manufacturers and distributors should not escape liability based on privity, (3) and manufacturers and distributors are better equipped to bear the costs (which ultimately get passed on to consumers anyway through higher prices) (Stearns, 2001).

That having been said, many states still apply the strict liability rule to the entire chain of distribution while other states are requiring that some negligence has to occur relative to the retail store. The states that demand an element of negligence or fault on the part of the retail store were finding that many consumers were only suing the store rather than the manufacturer because it was easier so state courts included this negligence caveat in an attempt to include all the responsible parties along the chain (Stearns, 2001).

As mentioned above, one of the elements of strict liability is that the product is defective or unsafe. There are three areas within which a defective or unsafe product may be categorized (Stearns, 2001):

Manufacturing defect: Manufacturing defect is just how it sounds. A product is falls into this category if it is defective due to design, performance, improper assembly, missing parts, loose parts, substandard parts and/or damaged parts. For example, a child’s car seat may be designed properly but becomes defective because it was manufactured wrong.

Design defect: This is different from the design aspect of manufacturing defect above in that a manufacturing defect caused by design is a product that was designed safely but manufactured wrong making the product defective. Here, design defect is a product defective before it even hits the manufacturer. A power tool designed without a safety guard or the very publicized exploding-gas-tank case involving Pintos would be a products defective in design.

Failure to warn: This defect is as the result of a product failing to provide instructions on how to use a product, warning labels on the improper use or consumption of a product, or failure to disclose any potential risk of danger. Taking this a step further, even if warning labels and/or directions for use are included with a product, it then may come down to whether or not that documentation was adequate to qualify as adequate notice. A good example of a failure to warn is when the tobacco companies had their feet held to the fire for not including a warning label advising of the hazards of smoking to pregnant women.

Finally, a strict product liability case is one from which a victorious plaintiff can be awarded monetary damages although many times punitive damages will be included in the claim (see the Merck & Co. vs. Garza lawsuit). Compensatory damages are rarely disputed; however, punitives are not generally awarded because usually malice or intent must be proven and attached to the manufacturer.

Reference

Stearns, D. (2001). An introduction to product liability law. Marler Clark LLP.