Product liability theories

Action Under a Strict Products Liability Theory... 

Is the manufacturer or marketer of a handgun, in general, liable under any strict liability theory to a person injured as a result of the criminal use of its product ... 

The district court rejected both the strict product liability and the ultrahazardous activity theory in Perkins s suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the gun manufacturer. In a similar case, Richman v. Charter Arms Corp. (involving a robbery, rape, and murder committed using a. 38 caliber handgun), the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on product liability but not on ultrahazardous activity. The two cases were then combined in an appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth District. 

Since Baycol s withdrawal, numerous lawsuits have been filed against Bayer. As of January 2004, Bayer estimated that it had settled over 2000 Bay col-related claims out of court, and still faced over 10 000 existing lawsuits in both federal and state courts including putative class actions. The actions in the United States have been based primarily on theories of product liability, consumer... 

Adverse events secondary to vaccine products have inspired lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. Two theories of tort (duties created by law regarding professional conduct) are reviewed when litigation against a vaccine manufacturer ensues. The first regards safe vaccine development, with a vaccine manufacturer strictly liable for defective vaccine products. Liability cases involving defective vaccines rarely occur, and manufac-... 

The litigated cases which are discussed in the next section have been selected to illustrate particular aspects of the manufacturer s duty to warn and how that particular aspect was treated in the reported case. The manufacturer should note, however, that nearly all product liability cases involve a basic pattern of analysis. In order for the manufacturer to have been found liable there must have been, in fact, a duty to warn, a breach of that duty, and (except in Sindell) a causal relationship established between the manufacturer s breach and the plaintiffs iiyury. In conducting this analysis, regardless of the legal theory being employed, the courts will consider ... 

The so-called line of product theory has been adopted by the California Supreme Court in Ray v. Alad Corp., which holds that where the successor corporation acquires all or substantially all of the assets of the predecessor corporation for cash and continues essentially the same manufacturing operation as the predecessor corporation, the successor remains liable for product liability claims of its predecessor corporation. The theory has been applied even though the successor corporation expressly disclaims liability during the purchase transaction. 

Under which theory are most products liability lawsuits argued today ... 

There are four important theories that form the basis of product liability and provide a fundamental understanding of product liability litigation ... 

In reference to the four theories of product liability, each has its own requirements for evidence presentation (Brauer, 1990) ... 

Rather than focusing on a manufacturer s conduct, the legal theory of strict product liability focuses on the product itself. If the product is defective in any demonstrable way, liability attaches and the manufacturer may be held liable for the injuries of anyone hurt by the product. This type of tort liability is most prevalent in the manufacturing stage of our nanotechnology product legal life cycle. 

This article, particularly tailored to cover plastics materials produets, provides an overview of the three major theories under which a products liability action may be initiated, namely negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability. Negligence liability claim elements of duty owed by the manufacturer, breach of duty, causation and damages are discussed. Also, discussed are claims brought under the theories of breach of warranty and strict products liability. 

In order to prevail in a products liability action under a negligence theory, a plaintiff must prove all of the four elements listed and discussed below. Negligence claims are civil actions based on the law of torts. In such actions, the presumption is that the accused party is not liable and the plaintiff has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof required in ordinary civil actions and refers to proof which leads the finder/trier of fact to find that the existence of the fact is more probable than not. Preponderance of the evidence is a lower standard of proof as compared to the standards of clear and convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Under a strict liability theory, no privity of contract is required between the injured party and the seller of the produet. As such, all foreseeable users and consumers of the product who suffered injury caused by the defective product have a right of action against the seller of the product. What an injured party has to prove is that the product left the hands of the seller in a defective condition and that the defect was the cause of his injury. On the other hand, the only defense the seller may raise is the assumption of risk by the user of the product. 

In theory, the practitioner, as a professional person, is able to assess the risks and potential benefits to his patient, and to decide that the balance lies in favour of the use of a particular unauthorised product. A company receiving a request from that practitioner will therefore assume that the doctor will exercise reasonable care and skill in using the product in a way that avoids causing injury to his patients. However, the principle that supply is the doctor s sole responsibility does not provide companies with total protection against liability where a patient is injured by treatment with an unlicensed product. 

---