Chapter%204%20Products%20Liability

1
Chapter 4 Products Liability

• Defective Products
• ????

2
The Concept of Defect

• Something wrong, inadequate, or improper in
  manufacture, warning, or safety measures of a
  product.

3
Defect in Manufacture

• A defect that occurs when the manufacturer
  fails to (1) properly assemble a product (2)
  properly test a product, or (3) adequately check
  the quality of the product.

4
CASE 4-6
Shoshone Coca-cola Bottling Co. v.
Dolinski Supreme Court of Nevada
5
CASE BRIFING
1.Leo purchased a bottle of Squirt, a soft
drink, from a vending machine his place of
employment.Leo opened the bottle and consumed
part of its contents, immediately became ill.
Upon examination, it was found that the bottle
contained the decomposed?? body of a mouse, mouse
hair, and mouse feces.
6
CASE BRIFING
2. Leo suffered physical and mental stress from
consuming the decomposed????mouse and possessed
an aversion to soft drinks. Shoshone manufactured
and distributed the Squrit bottle. Leo sued
Shoshone, basing his lawsuit on the doctrine of
strict liability. The state of Nevada had not
previously recognized the doctrine of strict
liability. However, the jury returned a verdict
in favor of the plaintiff. Soshone appealed.
7
Key Questions

• Should the state of Nevada judicially adopt
  the doctrine of strict liability?
• If so, was there a defect in the manufacture
  of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiffs
  injuries?

8
COURT'S REASONING
In adopting the doctrine of strict liability, the
court stated, Public policy demands that one who
places upon the market a bottled beverage in a
condition dangerous for use must be held strictly
liable to the ultimate user for injuries
resulting from such use, although the seller has
exercised all reasonable care.
9
DECISIION
The Supreme Court of Nevada adopted the doctrine
of strict liability and held that the evidence
supported the trial courts finding that there
was a defect in manufacture. Affirmed.
10
Critical Legal Thinking
Should the courts adopt the theory of strict
liability?
11
Contemporary Business
Should all in the chain of distribution of a
defective product---even those parties who are
not responsible for the defect---be held liable
under the doctrine of strict liability? Or should
liability be based only on fault?
12
Defect in Design

• A defect that occurs when a product is
  improperly designed.

13
Defect in Packaging

• A defect that occurs when a product has been
  placed in packaging that is insufficiently
  tamperproof.

14
Failure to Warn

• A defect that occurs when a manufacturer does
  not place a warning on the packaging of products
  that could cause injury if the danger is unknown.

15
CASE 4-7
Nowak V. Faberge USA, Inc United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit
16
CASE BRIEFING
1.Faberge manufactures Aqua Net, a hair spray
that is sold in an aerosol can. In addition to
the hair-holding spray, Aqua Net contains a
mixture of butane?? or propane?? as the
aerosol??? propellant??? and alcohol as a
solvent??. Alcohol, butane, and propane all are
extremely flammable. Aerosol cans of Aqua Net
carry a warning on the back stating , Do not
puncture and Do not use near fire or flame.
Alison Nowak, a 14-year old girl, tried to spray
her hair with a newly purchased can of Aqua Net.
17
2.She intended to pour the contents into an empty
aerosol bottle and use it. She was standing in
the kitchen near a gas stove when she punctured
the can. A cloud of hair spray gushed from the
can and the stoves pilot light ignited the spray
into a ball of flame. She suffered severe,
permanently disfiguring burns over 20 percent of
her body. She sued Faberge for damages under
strict liability, alleging that Faberge failed to
warn her of the dangers of the flammability of
Aqua Net. The jury held against Faberge and
awarded Nowak 1.5 million. Faberge appealed.
18
Key Question

Did Faberge adequately warn the plaintiff of the
flammability of Aqua Net?
19
Court's Reasoning
A manufacturer owes a duty to adequately warn
users of the dangerous propensities of their
products. A product is defective if it is
distributed without sufficient warnings to notify
the ultimate user of the dangers inherent in the
product. The trial court properly determined to
send the case to the jury for this determination.
The jurys verdict that Faberges warning was
inadequate is upheld.
20
DECISION
The court of appeals affirmed the district
courts judgment that Faberge had failed to warn
the plaintiff of the dangers of flammability of
its product and is therefore strictly liable.
21
Critical Legal Thinking
Should the law recognize a failure to warn as a
basis for imposing strict liability on
manufacturers and sellers?
22
Contemporary Business
Do you think this case was decided properly? What
else could Faberge have done to avoid liability?
23
Other Product Defects

• Failure to provide adequate instructions
• Inadequate testing of products
• Inadequate selection of component parts or
• materials,
• Improper certification of the safety of a product