Also known as: Manufacturer's Products Liability · manufacturers products liability · manufacturer products liability · manufacturers' product liability · products liability · manufacturer liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A strict tort liability doctrine under which a manufacturer is subject to liability for physical harm caused by a product sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer even though the seller has exercised all possible care and even though the user has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
Mason McCarthy bought a power tool from a retailer and lent it to his neighbor Matthew Martinez. The tool had a manufacturing defect that caused it to malfunction and injure Martinez while he used it for its intended purpose. Martinez sued the manufacturer directly. The absence of any contract between Martinez and the manufacturer did not bar recovery because the manufacturer owed a duty of due care to foreseeable users.
Matrix Technologies purchased specialized software from Magnolia Foods under a detailed services contract. The software contained a defect that caused only lost profits with no personal injury or other property damage. Matrix sued in tort for the economic losses. The economic loss rule confined the claim to contract remedies and did not permit a separate products liability recovery.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Michelle Murphy bought a sport utility vehicle marketed for off-road use. While driving on a paved highway the vehicle rolled over because its design made it unstable during an emergency lane change that was a reasonably foreseeable use. Murphy sued the manufacturer under the doctrine for the resulting injuries. Liability attached even though the vehicle performed safely for its primary intended purpose.
Monarch Pharmaceuticals bought industrial mixing equipment for its production line. A defect in the equipment caused it to fail and damage only itself with no harm to other property or persons. Monarch sought recovery in tort for the cost of repair and lost production. The claim was governed exclusively by contract and warranty law rather than products liability tort principles.
Mustafa Mahmoud received a surgically implanted medical device that had received FDA premarket approval. The device later malfunctioned and caused personal injury. Mahmoud brought a state-law products liability action alleging a design defect. Federal requirements preempted the claim because it would impose duties different from or in addition to the federal regulatory scheme.
Monica Morgan was injured when a car seat manufactured by Majestic Construction failed during a collision. Evidence showed that Morgan had failed to secure the seat properly before the accident. The jury applied comparative fault principles to reduce her recovery under the doctrine in proportion to her own responsibility for the harm.
No. The doctrine imposes liability on a manufacturer for harm caused by a defective product even when the injured party has no contractual relationship with the manufacturer.
Supporting sources
No. The economic loss rule limits recovery in such cases to contract and warranty remedies rather than products liability tort claims.
Supporting sources
Yes. Liability may attach if the product is not reasonably safe for a use that is reasonably foreseeable even if it differs from the primary intended use.
Supporting sources
…of actual damages). - Connecticut —Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b (1995) (caps punitive damages at twice compensatory damages in products liability cases). - Delaware —H. R. 237, 138th Gen. Ass. (introduced May 17, 1995) (would cap punitive damages at greater of three times compensatory damages, or $250,000). - Florida —Fla. Stat.…