Also known as: product liability doctrine · products liability · product liability · strict products liability · product liability tort
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine under which a manufacturer owes a duty of due care to any foreseeable plaintiff, including users, consumers, and bystanders, even in the absence of contractual privity.
Peter Park bought a ladder from Precision Tools for home use. The ladder collapsed while his neighbor Paula Pierce used it to trim a tree, fracturing her leg. Paula sued Precision Tools directly. The manufacturer owed a duty of care to any foreseeable user regardless of contractual privity, so the claim proceeds.
Phoenix Technologies sold a defective conveyor system to Progressive Healthcare under contract. The system failed and caused only lost profits with no personal injury or property damage. Progressive sued in tort for the economic losses. The economic loss rule confines such claims to contract remedies and bars the tort action.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Piper Patel purchased a power saw manufactured by Precision Tools. The saw's blade guard failed during ordinary use and severed her finger. She sued Precision Tools under strict products liability. The manufacturer is liable for injuries from a product that was defective when sold and reached the user unchanged.
Parker Phillips bought a new car from Platinum Partners that had a hidden paint defect. After trial, the jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages against BMW of North America. The award must be reviewed for constitutional excessiveness by comparing the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages and the reprehensibility of the conduct.
Phoebe Park rented a forklift from Precision Tools for warehouse work. The forklift tipped over during normal operation because its stability design was inadequate. She sued under the consumer expectations test for design defect. Liability turns on whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended.
Patricia Patel took a prescription medication manufactured by Progressive Healthcare that caused severe side effects. She sued alleging a safer alternative design existed. Manufacturers of prescription drugs are not strictly liable for design defects when the product is unavoidably unsafe and accompanied by adequate warnings.
No. A manufacturer owes a duty of due care to any foreseeable plaintiff, including users, consumers, and bystanders, not merely the immediate purchaser.
Supporting sources
The economic loss rule prevents a products liability plaintiff from recovering purely economic losses in tort without accompanying personal injury or property damage.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must show the product was sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, the seller was engaged in the business of selling such a product, and the product reached the user without substantial change.
Supporting sources
…booby-trap for the unwary. The injured consumer is seldom ‘steeped in the business practice which justifies the rule,’ [James, Product Liability , 34 Texas L. Rev. 44, 192, 197] and at least until he has had legal advice it will not occur to him to give notice to one with whom he has had no dealings.” (Prosser, Strict Liability to…