Term
|
Definition
| The responsibility of manufacturers (and sometimes sellers) of goods to pay for harm to purchasers (and sometimes other users and even bystanders) caused by a defective product. |
|
|
Term
| Public Policy Objectives behind Products Liability |
|
Definition
| Society's decision through courts and legislature that businesses manufacturing and selling defective products are in the best economic position to bear the expenses incurred when a faulty product injures an innocent user. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In consumer law, any obligations imposed by law on a seller that benefit a buyer; for example, the warranty that goods are merchantable and the warranty that goods sold as fit for a particular purpose are fit for that purpose. A guarantee that a product or service meets certain quality standards. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Goods that are fit for thier usual or customary purpose. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A legal relationship that exists between parties to a contract. When parties are directly engaged in an agreement between them. In some cases, privity must exist in order for an individual to make a claim against another. |
|
|
Term
| Imminent danger exception to privity as a prerequisite to a claim |
|
Definition
| A historical exception to the privity-of-contract requirement in defective product cases. |
|
|
Term
| Restatement (Second) of Torts (1998) (re Strict Products Liability) |
|
Definition
| A highly respected secondary source of law detailing the current state of tort law and trends. Definitive rule for strict products liability. |
|
|
Term
| Restatement (Third) of Torts |
|
Definition
| A revision of section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that focuses on products liability. Not all jurisdictions follow this edition. |
|
|
Term
| Types of Warranties to Demonstrate Strict Products Liability |
|
Definition
| (1) Express Warranty (2) Implied Warranty of Merchantability (3) Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose. Plaintiff need not show negligence or intentional harm. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A statement that a particular promise or set of facts is true. If the facts are not as represented, the purchaser will have a claim for any loss as a result ("never needs ironing") |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A set of uniform model standards concerning commercial transactions |
|
|
Term
| Implied Warranty of Merchantability |
|
Definition
| A promise implied but not expressed by law, that goods sold will be fit for their ordinary (general) purpose. When a product is sold, the law imposes IWoM. Arises by virtue of the law. A cell phone must conduct sound sufficiently clearly |
|
|
Term
| Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose |
|
Definition
| When a buyer relies on a seller's expertise in recommending a particular product, there is an implied promise that the product will work as described by the seller. Involves an interaction between buyer and seller. Buyer buys on the basis of seller's recommendation. (I need glue that will stick two pieces of wood together without nails) |
|
|
Term
| Parties Involved in Products Liability Cases |
|
Definition
| Manufacturer, seller, user |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Maker of the product that, if defective, gives rise to products liability |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Anyone who is in the business of selling goods. One who sells property, either its own property; or One who sells through contract with the actual owner. |
|
|
Term
| Wholesalers and Retailers |
|
Definition
| Wholesalers are business that buy goods from owners and sell them to retailers, which in turn sell the products to customers, usually individual persons. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| One who acquires property through its purchase |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In products liability law, a person who is injured by a defective product. It must have been reasonably foreseeable that the injured party would use the defective product. The plaintiff in a products liability case. |
|
|
Term
| Defendants in Products Liability Litigation |
|
Definition
| The retailer, wholesaler, and manufacturer. Shotgun approach. All those along the product distribution chain to ensure that one of them will have enough money to pay a judgment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The one person or organization, among many possible defendants, best able to pay a judgment. The one the plaintiff is most likely to sue. |
|
|
Term
| Negligence re Products Liability |
|
Definition
| Seller's or Manufacturer's negligence is irrelevant to strict liability. Doesn't matter how much care the seller or manfacturer used in making or maintaining the product. If the product was defective, and a user was harmed as a result, absolute liability applies. |
|
|
Term
| Products Liability Elements (a la Section 402A of R(S)oT |
|
Definition
| One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the [foreseeable] user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling the product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold [and the user uses the product in the way the product was designed to be used] This is even though (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller [ultimate user] |
|
|
Term
| Unreasonably Dangerous Products (Element of Products Liability) |
|
Definition
| The product must be unreasonably dangerous as a result of its defect |
|
|
Term
| Unreasonably Dangerous Products: Fault in Product Design (Type 1) |
|
Definition
| Product in inherently dangerous because of a poor design but for which the product would be safe to use. |
|
|
Term
| Faulty Product Design Test 1: Consumer Contemplation Test (N/A) |
|
Definition
| If a reasonable person would not have anticipated the danger created by the fault in the product, then the product is unreasonably dangerous. I.e. if the reasonable person would have noticed the danger in the design, the product is not inherently dangerous. |
|
|
Term
| Faulty Product Design Test 2: Danger/Utility Test |
|
Definition
| A product is unreasonably dangerous if the danger created by its design outweighs the benefits derived from its use. |
|
|
Term
| Faulty Product Design Test 3: State-of-the-Art Discoverability Test |
|
Definition
| if manufacturers could have discovered hazards created by defective product designs, using current, state-of-the-art technologies, then failure to do so makes a design-flawed product unreasonably dangerous. |
|
|
Term
| Unreasonably Dangerous Products: Error in Product Manufacture or Assembly [Assembly Defect] (Type 2) |
|
Definition
| Errors in production, manufacture, or assembly may render a product unreasonably dangerous despite safe design. |
|
|
Term
| Unreasonably Dangerous Products: Improper Product Maintenance [Maintenance Defect] (Type 3) |
|
Definition
| If a seller fails to maintain a product properly, and the product later causes injury to the ultimate user, then the product was unreasonably dangerous. |
|
|
Term
| Unreasonably Dangerous Products: Seller or Manufacturer's Failure to Warn (Type 4) |
|
Definition
| Manufacturers and sellers have an obligation to warn ultimate user about inherent product dangers. Failure to do so results in strict liability. Warning must be in an obvious place. |
|
|
Term
| Business Requirement (Element of Products Liability) |
|
Definition
| The manufacturer or seller must be engaged in the business of selling products such as the defective item that injured the ultimate user. Someone then selling to a friend wouldn't be liable. |
|
|
Term
| Substantially Unchanged Condition Requirement (Element of Products Liability) |
|
Definition
| For products liability to apply, the product must reach the ultimate user without any substantial changes in its condition from the time it left the manufacturer or seller. |
|
|
Term
| Proximate Cause (Element in Products Liability) |
|
Definition
| The defective product must have been the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury if liability is to attach. [The injury must have been a foreseeable consequence] |
|
|
Term
| Proper Use Requirement (Element of Products Liability) |
|
Definition
| The ultimate user must use the defective product properly in order for PL to apply. The user must use the product for some function for which it was designed or intended to be used. |
|
|
Term
| Design Defect in Restatement (Third) |
|
Definition
| A product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design... and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. Burden is on the plaintiff to show reasonable alternative design. |
|
|
Term
| Foreseeable Plaintiffs Theory |
|
Definition
| (In some jurisdictions) It must have been reasonably foreseeable that a particular ultimate user would use the defective product. Some ultimate users are not reasonably foreseeable and no duty is owed to them (like a baby using a power drill) |
|
|
Term
| Defense to Products Liability: Ultimate User's Misuse |
|
Definition
| The ultimate user is expected to use the product properly. If he misuses a defective product and is injured as a consequence, he will have no claim, even if the product was actually defective. |
|
|
Term
| Defense to Products Liability: Ultimate User's Misuse: Foreseeable Misuse |
|
Definition
| A products liability claim would not be barred if the ultimate user used the product in a reasonably foreseeable different manner, like using a chair as a stepstool. |
|
|
Term
| Defense to Products Liability: Ultimate User's Misuse: Removal of Safety Devices |
|
Definition
| If a safety device is dismantled or removed, a PL cause of action would not be available, because the product was misused and altered. |
|
|
Term
| Defense to Products Liability: Assumption of Risk |
|
Definition
| The ultimate user assumes the risk of being injured by a dangerous product in three ways: (1) by discovering but disregarding the defect and using the product anyway. (2) by failing to properly maintain the product. (3) by failing to follow instructions or heed warnings for safe product use. |
|
|
Term
| Defense to Products Liability: Assumption of Risk: Ignoring a Discovered Defect |
|
Definition
| Assumption of risk is the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of a known risk with full appreciation of the dangers involved. The ultimate user assumes the risk by ignoring discovered risks and using the product anyway. |
|
|
Term
| Defense to Products Liability: Assumption of Risk: Failure to Properly Maintain Product |
|
Definition
| Assumption of risk is the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of a known risk with full appreciation of the dangers involved. The ultimate user cannot recover in PL if he failed to properly maintain the product for safe use. |
|
|
Term
| Defense to Products Liability: Assumption of Risk: Failure to Follow Instructions or Heed Warnings |
|
Definition
| Assumption of risk is the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of a known risk with full appreciation of the dangers involved. The ultimate user does not have a PL cause of action if he didn't follow instructions or disregarded warnings that specifically point out dangers inherent in product design. Also if he ignores a safety recall. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The violation of either an express or an implied warranty. Per Uniform Commercial Code provisions on implied and express warranty |
|
|
Term
| Tort of Bad Faith / Bad Faith Liability |
|
Definition
| When an insurance company unreasonably denies a claim or fails to pay it in a timely fashion within the policy limits. Insurance companies are expected to negotiate in good faith on behalf of an insured person and promptly settle claims for which liability is reasonably clear. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Dishonesty or failure to deal fairly with another person. |
|
|
