Personal Injury and Strict Products Liability

Many principles applied by U.S. courts originate from "common law," a collection of legal principles mostly derived from decisions in actual cases, including historical cases in England. At common law, however, only the person(s) who purchased a product could sue if they were injured through the use of the product.

However reasonable this may have seemed prior to the industrial revolution in the 19^th Century, it seemed increasingly unfair as the amount and variety of products burgeoned. There rapidly developed a "chain" of distribution or manufacture for products, such that the ultimate user of a product was seldom the one who purchased it from the original manufacturer.

Theories of Product Liability Recovery

States recognized the unfairness of prohibiting injured persons from seeking redress from the manufacturers of defective products, and passed product liability laws allowing injured persons to seek damages from those responsible for defective and dangerous products. The principles, provisions, and procedures of such product liability laws vary from state to state. Early cases were based upon the theory of negligence or breach of warranty; the product failed to live up to the promises and specifications contained in a written warranty. Later cases concluded that a warranty that the product was fit for its intended or foreseeable uses was "implied."

There were still limitations inherent in these theories. The negligence theory required the showing of a duty to the injured party on the part of the manufacturer, and a breach of that duty. The warranty theory required a relationship between the injured party and the manufacturer. These elements were not always present. Critics felt that recovery should not always be dependent upon the fault of product makers or sellers; injury by a defective product should be compensated regardless of intent or negligence.

Strict Liability for Product Injuries

A landmark 1916 New York state decision, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., held that a contractual relationship was no longer a prerequisite for manufacturer or seller liability. The idea persisted and grew that a theory was needed to protect consumers from defective products, and that the costs of injuries from defective products should be borne by the manufacturers, sellers, and others, regardless of how careful they had been in making and handling the product.

The result was a judicially-created doctrine of "strict liability" applied to products. A 1963 California case is often credited with first applying the theory when an injured party had little hope of succeeding under theories of negligence or warranty. The doctrine of strict product liability holds that a defendant in the chain of distribution may be held liable, without fault and/or intent, if the product sold to the consumer is defective or unreasonably dangerous and causes injury. Such defendants can be liable even if they took reasonable care to ensure the product was safe. The focus is on the product, not what the defendant knew or intended. Commentators argued that imposing strict liability would force manufacturers to make safer products.

Requirements for Establishing Strict Liability

Strict liability is not automatic. The claimant/plaintiff still must establish a number of elements to succeed. These elements vary from state to state, but frequently include the following:

• The defendant was a manufacturer, seller, supplier, etc. of the product.
• The product had a defect that made it "unreasonably dangerous" for its intended use.
• The defect existed when it left the possession of the particular defendant.
• The defect was the direct/proximate cause of the injury.
• The product was being used properly or in a "foreseeable" manner.

For example, a buyer may purchase a riding lawn mower at a garage sale. While the buyer is using the lawn mower, the blade becomes disengaged from the mower, causing injury to the buyer. If it is established that the manufacturer made the product with a defective device to secure the blade, the manufacturer may be liable for the injuries sustained, even without a direct sale to the buyer and regardless of the care in the design and manufacture of the lawn mower.

Establishing Product Defects

To establish a defect, most claimants rely on the testimony of "expert witnesses," i.e., those whose special knowledge and/or training qualifies them to give an opinion on scientific, technical or other special knowledge matters. As the testimony is often crucial to establishing liability, defendants frequently try to have the testimony excluded. The court has the power to do so if the testimony is deemed irrelevant or unreliable, or the expert is deemed unqualified.

Types of product defects that may be shown include:

• Design defects, indicating the product is inherently unsafe.
• Manufacturing defects, which arise from flaws in a particular version of the product.
• Merchandising defects, arising from a failure to warn of known dangers and/or include any or adequate instructions for use.

Defective does not necessarily mean unreasonably dangerous. Court may apply a balancing test to determine if a product's utility to society outweighs its dangers and potential harm.

A Defense to the Doctrine of Strict Liability

Defendants in product liability actions have a number of possible defenses, such as misuse of the product. Another defense is applied to products known by the ordinary customer and the community to be dangerous or unavoidably unsafe. An example might be a knife, which is dangerous, however its danger is obvious and its benefits outweigh its potential dangers when properly used.