Theories of Product Liability

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

Strict liability is the concept that a manufacturer of a product is liable for injuries received due to product defects, without the necessity for a plaintiff to show negligence or fault (Hammer, 1972). In some instances, a party may be liable for damages caused even though there was no negligence or intentional tort. Some activities, even though they are desirable and often necessary, are 

Negligence is the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care. In addition, it also includes the responsibility to carry out a legal duty so injury or property damage does not occur to another (Hammer, 1972). 

Breach of express warranty occurs when the product does not meet the claims made by the manufacturer and, as a result, damage or injury occurs to another (Colangelo and Thornton, 1981). When a company gives a statement of performance concerning a product, this statement becomes part of the product. If the product fails to live up to the standards outlined by this statement, then the product breaches the express warranty. This warranty may be written, oral, or simply in the form of a demonstration. The assumption made by the buyer, and justifiably so, is that the product purchased will perform as well as was shown in the demonstration. 

Breach of implied warranty occurs when a product fails to fulfill 

---

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... 

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

The United States has also adopted a theory of strict liability. This theory imposes liability on the seller of a product that is unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in its design, manufacture or warnings. There are special provisions carved out for pharmaceutical products because of their value to society and the fact they are unavoidably unsafe . Such products need to be accompanied by an... 

The theory of enterprise liability has been developed to cover situations in which a group of manufacturers adhere to a practice, procedure or standard which itself leads to the manufacture of a particular, unidentifiable injiuy-producing 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. 

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. 

Although drug manufacturer liability under a theory of design defect products tort was relatively easy to prove, especially in courts adopting the Barker risks benefits test, some DES plaintiffs were barred from recovery by limitations placed on the unborn plaintiff liability doctrine that originated with the thalidomide cases. While thalidomide s teratogenicity affected only fetuses exposed... 

Manufacturers or sellers are not liable for all injuries that may result from a product. This would be the concept of absolute liability. However, these four basic theories clearly establish the product responsibilities of the manufacturer or seller in most states (Brauer, 1990). 

---