Also known as: products liability · product liabilities · prod. liab.
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Liability imposed on manufacturers, distributors, and sellers for physical harm caused by defective products that reach users without substantial change. The rule applies even when the seller exercised all possible care and even without contractual privity between the injured party and the seller.
Pierre Poulin bought a ladder from a local store. The ladder collapsed under normal use because of a manufacturing flaw and injured a neighbor who borrowed it. The neighbor sued the manufacturer directly. The absence of any contract between the neighbor and the manufacturer did not prevent recovery.
Phuong Pham purchased industrial equipment under a contract that contained warranty disclaimers. The equipment failed and caused only lost profits with no personal injury or other property damage. Pham sued in tort for the economic harm. The economic loss rule barred the tort claim because the dispute remained inside the products liability setting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paige Porter's estate sued an aircraft manufacturer after a crash. The plaintiffs offered cockpit voice recordings to show a fuel system rollback rather than pilot error. The recordings were admitted to prove the existence of the alleged defect.
Pablo Perez was injured in California when a motorcycle tire exploded. He sued the Taiwanese tube manufacturer that had placed its products into the national distribution network knowing some would reach California. The manufacturer's awareness that its products would enter the forum supported jurisdiction over the products claim.
Priscilla Parks bought turbines for commercial ships. The turbines malfunctioned and caused only repair costs and lost profits with no personal injury or damage to other property. Parks sued the turbine maker in tort. The claim failed because products liability does not permit recovery of purely economic losses.
Pearl Porter sued a foreign tire maker in North Carolina after a tire failure injured her there. The company sold millions of tires through a national network that included the forum state. The volume of sales created general jurisdiction for the products liability action.
No. A manufacturer owes a duty of due care to any foreseeable plaintiff including users and bystanders even without a direct contract with the injured party.
The rule prevents recovery of purely economic losses in tort when the only harm is disappointed commercial expectations and there is no accompanying personal injury or property damage.
The plaintiff must show that the defendant sold the product in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous, that the defendant was engaged in the business of selling such products, and that the product reached the user without substantial change.
No. Strict products liability applies only to those engaged in the business of selling the product. An installer or venue operator that does not place the item into the stream of commerce is not a seller.
…Zurcher was severely injured, and his passenger and wife, Ruth Ann Moreno, was killed. In September 1979, Zurcher filed a product liability action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano. Zurcher alleged that the 1978 accident was caused by a sudden loss of air and an explosion in the…