Also known as: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A · § 402A · Restatement Second 402A · 402A · §402A
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of strict products liability providing that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm caused to the ultimate user or consumer or to his property if the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product and the product is 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.
Harold purchased a new home from National Development and paid extra for a wall oven manufactured by Sigma Properties that was installed during construction. Three months later the oven emitted carbon monoxide and injured Harold. Harold sued National Development under strict products liability. The court examined whether National Development qualified as a seller engaged in the business of selling ovens given its limited sales volume and focus on home construction.
A smoker sued a cigarette manufacturer alleging that the risk of the product outweighed its social utility and caused lung cancer. The manufacturer had placed the cigarettes into the stream of commerce in their manufactured condition. The court considered whether the product reached the plaintiff without substantial change and whether the manufacturer qualified as a commercial seller under the rule.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A plaintiff injured by a drug taken by her mother decades earlier could not identify the specific manufacturer. Multiple companies had produced the identical product and placed it into commerce. The court applied the rule to determine whether each defendant could be held liable in proportion to its market share even without proof of which specific unit caused the harm.
A ship owner purchased turbines that failed due to a manufacturing defect and caused only economic losses from repair and lost profits. The turbines had been sold in the condition in which they left the manufacturer. The court considered whether the rule extended to claims seeking recovery solely for economic harm rather than physical injury to persons or property.
A patient sued a drug manufacturer alleging that the medication caused serious side effects. The manufacturer had sold the product in its approved formulation. The court examined whether the rule applied to prescription drugs and whether the plaintiff could recover without showing that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in design.
A passenger injured in a vehicle rollover sued the manufacturer alleging a design defect in the vehicle's stability. Evidence of similar incidents was introduced at trial. The court considered whether post-manufacture evidence and similar-incident proof could be used to establish that the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous when sold.
No. The rule imposes liability even though the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product. A plaintiff need only establish that the product was sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, that the seller was engaged in the business of selling such products, and that the product reached the user without substantial change.
No. The rule applies even though the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. Liability extends to ultimate users, consumers, and foreseeable bystanders who are injured by a defective product placed into the stream of commerce.
The plaintiff must show that the product was in the same condition when it caused injury as it was when it left the seller's hands. Post-sale modifications or misuse by the plaintiff that create the dangerous condition can defeat the claim if they constitute a substantial change.
…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…