Products Liability

Introduction

Products liability law holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for injuries caused by defective products. Liability may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability. The strict liability doctrine, codified in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, has become the primary theory of recovery in products liability cases. Products liability law distributes the costs of product-related injuries, incentivizes product safety, and protects consumers from unreasonable risks.

Strict Liability Under § 402A

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A provides that one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm caused by the product, even if the seller exercised all possible care and the user did not purchase the product directly from the seller.

The rule imposes strict liability —liability without proof of negligence —on commercial sellers of products. The plaintiff must prove that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control and that the defect caused the plaintiff’s injury. The policy rationales for strict liability include: the manufacturer is in the best position to spread the costs of injuries through pricing and insurance; the manufacturer has greater knowledge of product risks; and the manufacturer is responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce.

Types of Defects

Products liability recognizes three types of defects. Manufacturing defects occur when a product deviates from its intended design, making it different from other identical products. Manufacturing defects are evaluated under the consumer expectations test: the product must perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.

Design defects exist when all products of a particular design are inherently dangerous. The risk-utility test asks whether the risks of the design could have been reduced or avoided by a reasonable alternative design and whether the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. The consumer expectations test may also apply to design defect claims.

Failure to warn defects occur when the product lacks adequate warnings or instructions about risks that are not obvious to users. Manufacturers have a duty to warn of foreseeable risks associated with product use and to provide instructions for safe use. The adequacy of warnings is evaluated based on their content, prominence, and specificity.

The Restatement (Third) of Torts

The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998) restructured products liability doctrine. The Third Restatement provides separate standards for manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn. For design defects, the Third Restatement adopts a risk-utility test that requires proof of a reasonable alternative design.

The Third Restatement also addresses component parts liability, successor liability, and seller liability. Sellers (retailers) are generally not liable for design or warning defects if they did not contribute to the defect, but may be liable for manufacturing defects and for their own negligence.

Defenses

Defendants in products liability cases may assert several defenses. Comparative fault —the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to the injury —may reduce or bar recovery. Product misuse occurs when the plaintiff used the product in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable. Assumption of risk requires that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk and voluntarily encountered it.

Federal preemption may bar state-law products liability claims when federal law occupies the field or when compliance with both federal and state requirements is impossible. The Supreme Court has addressed preemption in numerous products liability cases involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and motor vehicles.

Conclusion

Products liability law imposes strict liability on manufacturers and sellers for injuries caused by defective products. The three types of defects —manufacturing, design, and warning —provide a comprehensive framework for addressing product-related injuries. The evolution from § 402A to the Restatement Third reflects ongoing developments in products liability doctrine.