Also known as: product liability · products-liability · strict product liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A manufacturer's or seller's tort liability for damages or injuries suffered by a buyer, user, or bystander as a result of a defective product. Liability may rest on negligence, strict liability in tort, or breach of warranty. The doctrine imposes responsibility on those who place goods into the stream of commerce when the goods cause harm.
Pierre Poulin bought a new car from a local dealer. While driving, a manufacturing defect in the steering mechanism caused the car to veer off the road and strike Pamela Phillips, a pedestrian. Phillips sued the manufacturer even though she had no contract with the dealer or the manufacturer. The court held the manufacturer liable because it owed a duty of care to all foreseeable users and bystanders regardless of privity.
Pacific Bank purchased specialized software from Pinnacle Holdings under a services contract. The software contained a defect that caused the bank's internal systems to fail, resulting in lost profits but no physical damage to other property. The bank sued in tort for the economic losses. The court applied the economic loss rule to bar the tort claim because the dispute arose in a products liability setting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Phoenix Technologies sold turbines to a shipbuilder for installation in commercial vessels. The turbines contained a defect that caused them to fail at sea, damaging only the turbines themselves and producing repair costs and lost charter revenue. The ship owner sued the manufacturer in tort. The court treated the claim as one for economic loss governed by contract rather than products liability tort doctrine.
Peter Park was injured when his car failed to deploy an airbag during a collision. He sued the manufacturer under state tort law alleging a design defect. The manufacturer had installed a manual seat-belt system that complied with the applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. The court held that the federal standard preempted the state tort claim.
Pablo Perez purchased a painting from a gallery. Years later he discovered the work was a forgery that had been sold as an original. He sued the seller for damages. The court applied the discovery rule and held that the limitations period began when Perez reasonably should have known the painting's true identity.
Paul Peterson received a pacemaker manufactured by Progressive Healthcare. The device malfunctioned and caused injury. Peterson sued under state products liability law. The pacemaker had received premarket approval from the FDA under federal regulations. The court held that the federal requirements preempted the state tort claims.
No. A manufacturer owes a duty of due care to any foreseeable plaintiff, including users, consumers, and bystanders, even without contractual privity.
The economic loss rule prevents a products liability plaintiff from recovering purely economic losses in tort without accompanying personal injury or property damage.
Products liability claims may rest on negligence, strict liability in tort under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, or breach of warranty.
No. Federal drug labeling requirements do not preempt state products liability claims regarding defective warnings, though some medical device claims may be preempted after premarket approval.
…struck their Audi in the rear, causing a fire that severely burned Kay Robinson and her two children. The Robinsons brought a products-liability action in an Oklahoma state court, alleging that the Audi was defective and that the defect caused the fire. The defendants included the manufacturer (Audi), the importer (Volkswagen), the…