Also known as: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A · § 402A · 402A · strict products liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule imposing strict liability on one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property. The seller must be engaged in the business of selling such a product and the product must be expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. The rule applies even though the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product and even though the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
Consumer purchases a power saw from Retailer. The saw blade detaches due to a manufacturing defect and injures Consumer's hand. Consumer recovers under the rule even though Retailer exercised all possible care and even without contractual privity with the manufacturer.
East River Steamship purchases turbines from Transamerica Delaval for its ships. The turbines malfunction and cause only economic loss to the ships with no personal injury or property damage to other property. The court dismisses the strict products liability claim because the loss is purely economic.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Raymond Ramos takes a prescription drug manufactured by a pharmaceutical company. He suffers injury from an alleged design defect. The court applies the rule that a manufacturer is strictly liable only if the product is defective and unreasonably dangerous when it leaves the seller.
Rachel Ramirez is injured when her SUV rolls over on a paved road. She offers post-manufacture evidence of similar incidents to prove the design was defective. The court excludes the evidence because it was not known at the time the product entered the stream of commerce.
Rajesh Rao buys a sports utility vehicle marketed for off-road use. While driving on a paved highway the vehicle rolls over. He sues for breach of implied warranty of merchantability because the vehicle was not fit for ordinary highway driving even though it met strict liability design standards.
Rebecca Ross smokes cigarettes for years and develops lung cancer. She sues the manufacturer alleging inadequate warnings. The court holds that federal cigarette labeling laws preempt some but not all of her strict products liability claims depending on the theory asserted.
A plaintiff must show that the seller sold a product in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous, that the seller was engaged in the business of selling such a product, and that the product reached the user or consumer without substantial change. The rule applies even if the seller exercised all possible care and even without privity of contract.
No. A repair shop whose primary business is providing services and that only occasionally resells refurbished parts is not engaged in the business of selling the product. Occasional incidental sales do not satisfy the requirement that the defendant be in the business of selling such products.
Yes. Every seller in the chain of distribution who regularly sells the product is subject to strict liability when the product reaches the consumer in a defective condition without substantial change. The rule reaches retailers as well as manufacturers.
…if the product was defective. In 1965, soon after our decision in Greenman , the Restatement Second of Torts published section 402A, which set forth the strict liability doctrine (hereinafter section 402A).[^maj-1] Almost all states have adopted some form of strict liability since that time. (Prosser & Keeton on Torts…