Product Liability Law Outline
Product Liability Law
Outline
I. Introduction
Imagine getting the same old dog or cat food for your pet that you always get and all of a sudden your pet gets sick and dies.
Is this a case that can be filed against the business you bought the food from, the company that made the food, or both?
Should companies be held accountable to a higher degree?
II. Definition of Product Liability
Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment
Cornell Law School
III. History of Product Liability
1. Denis W. Stearns
IV. Product Liability Claims
1. Manufacturing Defects 2. Design Defects 3. Negligence 4. Strict tort Liability 5. Breach …show more content…
of Warranty a. Express Warranty b. Implied Warranty
V. Articles on Product Liability
Great Falls, MT-Local woman joins suit against pet food companies
Product Liability Law - Protecting Consumers from Defective Products
VI. Product Liability Cases
Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4406 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2003).
Steen v. Petty-Fitzmaurice, Ala., Elmore County Cir. Ct., No. CV-01-286, Nov. 6, 2002.
VII. Conclusion
We looked at product liability law and the history, definitions around product liability law, articles, and cases that have been filed in the past.
Should companies be held accountable to a higher degree?
We can be more aware of product recalls and information that could be crucial when buying products. All this can protect our loved ones and ourselves.
Imagine getting the same old dog or cat food for your pet that you always get and all of a sudden your pet gets sick and dies.
Were would you start to find out what happened? First, you would have to take your pet to the veterinarian if it is sick and find out the cause of our pets sudden illness. Of course, if your pet dies then it would be up to you at your own expense or the veterinarian’s expense to find out what the cause of death was if there were multiple pets sick or dying. It could be a really long process before a company knows its pet food is tainted because it is distributed all over the world. In this case on March 16, 2007, Menu Foods, Inc., and other brand names recalled 84 varieties of dog food and 56 varieties of cat food due to poison found in their pet food. These products were produced at two of its facilities between December. 3, 2006, and March 6, 2007. Since then, Menu Foods has expanded its recall and several other companies also have voluntarily withdrawn products from the market. It probably took the FDA days to figure out what was wrong with Menu Foods, Inc., pet food which was causing pets to get sick and in some cases dying. Once you find out that your pet was poisoned you might want to contact a lawyer and make a product liability claim against Menu Food, Inc. Should Menu Foods, Inc., be held accountable to Product Liability Law’s based on damages that a product caused? Consequently, they should be held accountable and I will …show more content…
explain product liability laws and why they should be responsible to the consumers. First, of all we need to define Product Liability and understand what it covers.
Our text book defines product liability as, “the body of legal rules governing civil lawsuits for losses and harms resulting from a defendant’s furnishing of defective goods” (p. 482). Our text has a general explanation of product liability though, Cornell Law School has as in-depth definition which states, “Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. While products are generally thought of as tangible personal property, products liability has stretched that definition to include intangibles (gas), naturals (pets), real estate (house), and writings (navigational charts)” (para. 1). Cornell Law School covers different aspects on what and who is covered under product liability. My personal opinion is a person should be able to make a product liability claim against the manufacture of that product. It should cover any product that you buy, borrow, or lease that causes harm or death with no negligence on your part. Now, we need to know
the history of product liability and how it has changed. Throughout the early and mid 18th century when you bought a product you used it at your own risk. Then things changed in the late 18th century. The law or rule at the time was said to have derived from an English case decided in 1842. The case is Winterbottom v. Wright, and its facts are simple. The case was as follows: per Denis W. Stearns, “Mr. Winterbottom was seriously injured when the mail coach he was driving collapsed because of poor construction. The mail coach had been sold to the Postmaster General by its manufacturer. Mr. Wright, and the Postmaster in turn contracted with a company to supply horses to pull the coach, which then hired Mr. Winterbottom to drive the coach. Mr. Winterbottom sued Mr. Wright, only to have his case promptly dismissed based on the “general rule” that a product seller cannot be sued, even for proven negligence, by someone with whom he has not contracted-or, in the words of the law, someone with whom he is not “in privity”” (para. 4). Mr. Winterbottom should have sued the postmaster general under hardship and then the postmaster general could have sued Mr. Wright for product liability. Denis W. Stearns stated that one Lord announced the decision and explained, “If we were to hold that [Winterbottom] could sue in such a case, there is no point at which such actions would stop. The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract: if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty. The only real argument in favour of the naction is, that this is a case of hardship; but that might have been obviated, if the plaintiff had made himself a party to the contract” (para. 6) . When Mr. Winterbottom case was decided, the doors of the courthouse were locked to anyone who did not possess the key of privity. History shows over the course of time that laws change to protect the consumers. That change began with the creation of exceptions to an otherwise well established general rule. The first exception was when the seller knew that a product was dangerous but failed to disclose the danger to the buyer. The second exception involved products that were deemed inherently or imminently dangerous, such as guns, explosives, food and drink, and drugs. In 1916, came the historic decision in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., were MacPherson was injured when one of the wooden wheels of his automobile crumbled. Justice Benjamin Cardozo looked at the “inherent danger” exception for general rule of privity. Denis W. Stearns wrote that Justice Benjamin Cardozo stated, “We hold, then, that the principle of [inherent danger] is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully” (para 10). All state courts agreed with the case and privity had been swept aside. Now, a person injured by a defective product could sue the manufacturer for negligence even if he had purchased the product from another person. If someone gets hurt by a product then it should not matter who owns it only why they got hurt and how can we fix it. Throughout, history the law changed more and more to protect us so we need to define what falls under the product liability law. There are five claims of many under product liability that I will explain out of out text book, Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment. I will explain manufacturing defects and design defects claims. First, is manufacturing defects which, “occur when the product does not conform to its intended design at the time it leaves the manufacture’s hands” (p.500). For example, when Ford vehicles were losing control and flipping over due to manufacturing defects in Firestone’s tires. Next, design defects would occur when, “a product is defective in design when its foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by a reasonable alternative design, and the omission of that design rendered the product not reasonably safe” (p. 500). For example, a car that is designed with only three wheels might be considered defectively designed because it flips over too easily. A very serious claim for a manufacture of a product is negligence. Negligence is defined, “as a failure to use reasonable care, with harm to another party occurring as a result” (p. 166). Many cases typically involve one or more of the following claims: (1) negligent manufacture of goods, (2) negligent inspection, (3) negligent failure to provide adequate warnings, and (4) negligent design. For example, a manufacture not putting a warning on cigarettes that states, smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth or low birth weight is susceptible to lawsuits. Next, strict liability is, “liability without fault or more precisely, liability irrespective of fault” (p. 166). In this claim the plaintiff need not prove intent, recklessness, negligence, or any other kind of wrongfulness. A good example would be the case of Phillips v. Cricket Lighters. Robyn Williams’s son got her lighter out of her purse and was able to light it due to the lack of any child-resistant feature. The result was their house catching on fire and three people dying. The last claim would be breech of warranty, which under the UCC includes express and implied warranties. An express warranty can be created in one of three ways: through an affirmation of fact made by the seller to the buyer. This affirmation must relate to the goods, it must become part of the basis of the bargain. Also, an express warranty can be created by spoken words during negotiations or written into a sales contract. An example of express warranty under affirmation of fact would be that Dodge states its Ram 1500 5.7 Liter Hemi produces 345 Horsepower though in fact it only produces 300 horsepower. This could create an express warranty because they promised that the 5.7 Liter Hemi would produce 345 Horsepower. When, in fact, it only produced 300 horsepower. Implied warranty is, “a warranty created by operation of law rather than the seller’s express statements” (p. 485). For example, the Dodge dealer suggesting that you buy a specific vehicle for hauling a trailer in effect is promising that the vehicle will be suitable for that purpose. If that vehicle does not haul the trailer how the dealer said it would then you can’t go after him. Now, since we know what claims can be filed under product liability law we can discuss a couple articles. My local paper contained my first article which was very heart wrenching involving a local woman and her cat named Precious. The name of the article was “Local Woman Joins Suit Against Pet Food Companies.” According to Erin Madison, Tanya Brummett came home on March 9 to find that her cat Precious would not get up. Her cat would not eat or drink so Tanya and her husband took Precious to the veterinarian where she died right in front of there eyes. A week later, Ontario-based Menu Foods recalled more than 40 brands of cat and dog food with the list growing. The food that Brummett was feeding her cat was one of the foods that were later recalled. Now Brummett is one of the hundreds nationwide who have joined a class-action lawsuit filed against Menu Foods, Iams, and Proctor and Gamble. Madison, Wisconsin, based Progressive Law Group filed the lawsuit on March 20 in federal court. Jacqueline Johnson, the case’s class representative brought the case to Progressive Law Group when her cat got sick a week after the recall. Johnson’s cat Gumbie survived this ordeal but still requires injections to live. Progressive has been all over the news trying to get her story out to all the other pet owners going through this painful process. When Brummett saw this on the news she went on the Internet and found the Web site and singed up to be a plaintiff. Brummett also called Iams about her cat and they told her to send a copy of the vet records and a can of the food to be tested. She received a letter back from Iams stating that they would refund her for the food including shipping and vet and cremation bill. One line the letter stated, “We are sorry that you and your pet have experienced such an upsetting situation” (p. 7, sec A). The letter never stated if the food tested positive or not though we can guess that it did due to Iams offering to pay for everything. Iams would never state the food tested positive because it would be evidence brought against them in court. The second article I found to be really interesting was “Product Liability Law - Protecting Consumers from Defective Products.” This article is a good brief summary of product liability law, also called "products liability". Aaron Larson stated, “The goal of product liability laws is to help protect consumers from dangerous products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the marketplace products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective” (para. 1). Jurisdiction plays a big role because every state has different product liability laws. I did not realize that a product liability action can arise from a defect in real estate such as a leaky wall or poorly installed vapor barrier that causes mold to grow inside a wall, or from a product used in real estate, such as defective siding. This is good information to know because we all will buy a house some day. In this article they cover the three theories that claims can be brought under; design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects. The plaintiff must also prove negligence, strict liability, or breech of warranty to win a case. Some laws may be adhered to closer then others depending on what state you file suit in. Great article that gives different views of product liability with some Web links to cases for an idea of what you might be getting into. I have discussed what product liability is and the history, definitions of terms, and a couple articles, now it is time to brief two cases that involve product liability law. The first case I will brief is Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co... Jarvis testified at trial that, in 1991, she started her six-day-old Ford Aerostar in the driveway of her home in rural Woodstock, New York, with her foot lightly on the brake. After she turned on the ignition, the engine suddenly revved and the vehicle took off. As the van accelerated, Jarvis pumped the brake with both feet, looking down to make sure her feet were on the brake pedal. The van would not stop even with both feet on the brake. She steered to avoid people walking in the road and then heard saplings brushing against the side of the van before she blacked out. Jarvis testified that she had driven many different kinds of vehicles over the twenty-four years since she had first acquired a driver's license with no accidents. Jarvis's father, who was standing nearby, testified that he saw the car starting off at an unusually fast speed for his daughter. As the Aerostar passed him, he saw Jarvis holding on to the steering wheel very tight and her body was going back and forth ever so slightly. As a result of the accident, Jarvis sustained a traumatic head injury and could not return to her previous employment. The van traveled approximately 330 feet and did some braking that slowed it to 15 to 20 miles per hour before it entered a ditch and turned over. There were a total of 560 Aerostar’s reported to Ford that had similar problems of sudden acceleration. Expert, George Pope testified that the Aerostar’s brakes work off of vacuum and at full throttle if the brakes were not pumped correctly it would feel like you have no brakes. Another expert Samuel J. Ser, an electrical engineer, offered a theory of electrical malfunction and mechanical reasons why the van suddenly accelerated. His theory focused on the design of the Aerostar cruise control system. Another theory was when Jarvis offered three possible explanations at trial for why the dump valve did not permit Jarvis to stop the Aerostar from accelerating: (1) the dump valve was malfunctioning; (2) Jarvis was pumping the brakes, causing the Aerostar to reinstate the electrical malfunction and commence acceleration every time her foot rose from the pedal in the pumping action; or (3) Jarvis had not pressed far enough on the brakes to activate the dump valve. Ford claims that the accident was driver error by Jarvis and that the dump valve would work properly even if the cruise control system malfunctioned. Ford’s experts did not find anything wrong with the Aerostar after the accident and the jury concluded that Ford negligently designed the cruise control system and that Jarvis’s negligence was also a substantial factor is causing the accident. The court awarded 65% of the fault to Ford and 35% to Jarvis, because the owner’s manual directs drivers to apply the brakes firmly with one stroke and not in a pumping action. With Ford still sticking to driver error it moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Jarvis appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. District court’s judgment went in favor of Jarvis since there were so many people with similar experiences with the Aerostar. This is a great case of product liability concerning design defects with the Ford Aerostar. I believe that the case was decided correctly from the evidence provided and with so many similar incidents how could it be driver error. The next case I will brief is Steen v. Petty-Fitzmaurice concerning another vehicle though this one operates in the water. On August 28, 2000, William Steen, while operating a Sea-Doo personal watercraft on Lake Jordan, was struck by another Sea-Doo personal watercraft operated by Petty-Fitzmaurice. The impact of Petty-Fitzmaurice's personal watercraft severed Steen's right leg below the knee. William Steen sued Petty-Fitzmaurice on the grounds that he negligently or wantonly operated the personal watercraft that struck Steen. She also sued Bombardier, Inc., and Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, and Yamaha of Sylacauga, Inc., the seller of the personal watercrafts, on the grounds that they violated the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("the AEMLD") and that they were negligent in designing, testing, distributing, selling, and failing to recall the personal watercrafts in question, and in failing to providing adequate warnings. According to the lawsuit, Plaintiffs alleged that the personal watercraft was defectively designed because the personal watercraft did not have effective steering after the operator, Mr. Fitzmaurice, let off the throttle. This made it virtually impossible for Petty-Fitzmaurice to avoid hitting Steen. An Elmore County, Alabama, jury returned a $3.43 million verdict against William Petty-Fitzmaurice though after some problems with the jury they had to have a retrial. The new trial verdict was recently settled for a confidential amount. This case would fall under negligence on the part of Petty-Fitzmaurice's and design defects with the steering and throttle on Bombardiers personal watercraft. I believe that the case was settled correctly with the exception of Petty-Fitzmaurice's should have not been sued because he would have never hit Steen if it was not for the faulty steering and throttle. I would have sued the manufacture of the personal watercraft since they were at fault under product liability. In conclusion, I discussed what product liability is and the history, definitions, articles, and cases involving product liability. Product liability is very tricky because it seems very difficult to prove. The laws cover many different aspects from manufacturing defects to breech of warranty. My opinion is that companies and manufactures should be held to a higher degree concerning product liability because we trust them with anything and everything that they produce. The government should hold manufactures to higher test and inspection standards. Also, anything coming into the US should be inspected with the same or higher regulations then that of the US companies. There are many Web sites such as www.Recalls.gov that have up to date information on every product that is made or that enters the US market legally. I know I will be more aware about product recalls because they could save my family’s life, someone else’s, or my pets. If we were to hold manufactures to higher product liability standards we would not have our pets and our families dying due to poisoned food or accidents that could have been prevented.
Works Cited
Cornell Law School, WEX, Accessed 20 April 2007. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Products_liability
Larson, Aaron. “Product Liability Law - Protecting Consumers from Defective Products.” ExpertLaw. Accessed 20 April 2007. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/product_liability/product_liability.html
Madison, Erin. “Local Woman Joins Suit Against Pet Food Companies.” Great Falls Tribune 26 April 2007: 1A-7A.
Mallor, Jane P., James A. Barnes, Thomas Bowers, and Arlen W. Langvardt. Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment. 13th Ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007.
“Petty-Fitzmaurice v. Steen.” 2003. Supreme Court of Alabama. http://www.wallacejordan.com/decisions/Opinions2003/1020560.pdf
Stearns, Denis W. 2001 “AN INTRODUCTION TO PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW.” Accessed 20 April 2007. http://www.marlerclark.com/WPMarlerClark.pdf
Outline
I. Introduction
Imagine getting the same old dog or cat food for your pet that you always get and all of a sudden your pet gets sick and dies.
Is this a case that can be filed against the business you bought the food from, the company that made the food, or both?
Should companies be held accountable to a higher degree?
II. Definition of Product Liability
Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment
Cornell Law School
III. History of Product Liability
1. Denis W. Stearns
IV. Product Liability Claims
1. Manufacturing Defects 2. Design Defects 3. Negligence 4. Strict tort Liability 5. Breach …show more content…
of Warranty a. Express Warranty b. Implied Warranty
V. Articles on Product Liability
Great Falls, MT-Local woman joins suit against pet food companies
Product Liability Law - Protecting Consumers from Defective Products
VI. Product Liability Cases
Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4406 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2003).
Steen v. Petty-Fitzmaurice, Ala., Elmore County Cir. Ct., No. CV-01-286, Nov. 6, 2002.
VII. Conclusion
We looked at product liability law and the history, definitions around product liability law, articles, and cases that have been filed in the past.
Should companies be held accountable to a higher degree?
We can be more aware of product recalls and information that could be crucial when buying products. All this can protect our loved ones and ourselves.
Imagine getting the same old dog or cat food for your pet that you always get and all of a sudden your pet gets sick and dies.
Were would you start to find out what happened? First, you would have to take your pet to the veterinarian if it is sick and find out the cause of our pets sudden illness. Of course, if your pet dies then it would be up to you at your own expense or the veterinarian’s expense to find out what the cause of death was if there were multiple pets sick or dying. It could be a really long process before a company knows its pet food is tainted because it is distributed all over the world. In this case on March 16, 2007, Menu Foods, Inc., and other brand names recalled 84 varieties of dog food and 56 varieties of cat food due to poison found in their pet food. These products were produced at two of its facilities between December. 3, 2006, and March 6, 2007. Since then, Menu Foods has expanded its recall and several other companies also have voluntarily withdrawn products from the market. It probably took the FDA days to figure out what was wrong with Menu Foods, Inc., pet food which was causing pets to get sick and in some cases dying. Once you find out that your pet was poisoned you might want to contact a lawyer and make a product liability claim against Menu Food, Inc. Should Menu Foods, Inc., be held accountable to Product Liability Law’s based on damages that a product caused? Consequently, they should be held accountable and I will …show more content…
explain product liability laws and why they should be responsible to the consumers. First, of all we need to define Product Liability and understand what it covers.
Our text book defines product liability as, “the body of legal rules governing civil lawsuits for losses and harms resulting from a defendant’s furnishing of defective goods” (p. 482). Our text has a general explanation of product liability though, Cornell Law School has as in-depth definition which states, “Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. While products are generally thought of as tangible personal property, products liability has stretched that definition to include intangibles (gas), naturals (pets), real estate (house), and writings (navigational charts)” (para. 1). Cornell Law School covers different aspects on what and who is covered under product liability. My personal opinion is a person should be able to make a product liability claim against the manufacture of that product. It should cover any product that you buy, borrow, or lease that causes harm or death with no negligence on your part. Now, we need to know
the history of product liability and how it has changed. Throughout the early and mid 18th century when you bought a product you used it at your own risk. Then things changed in the late 18th century. The law or rule at the time was said to have derived from an English case decided in 1842. The case is Winterbottom v. Wright, and its facts are simple. The case was as follows: per Denis W. Stearns, “Mr. Winterbottom was seriously injured when the mail coach he was driving collapsed because of poor construction. The mail coach had been sold to the Postmaster General by its manufacturer. Mr. Wright, and the Postmaster in turn contracted with a company to supply horses to pull the coach, which then hired Mr. Winterbottom to drive the coach. Mr. Winterbottom sued Mr. Wright, only to have his case promptly dismissed based on the “general rule” that a product seller cannot be sued, even for proven negligence, by someone with whom he has not contracted-or, in the words of the law, someone with whom he is not “in privity”” (para. 4). Mr. Winterbottom should have sued the postmaster general under hardship and then the postmaster general could have sued Mr. Wright for product liability. Denis W. Stearns stated that one Lord announced the decision and explained, “If we were to hold that [Winterbottom] could sue in such a case, there is no point at which such actions would stop. The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract: if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty. The only real argument in favour of the naction is, that this is a case of hardship; but that might have been obviated, if the plaintiff had made himself a party to the contract” (para. 6) . When Mr. Winterbottom case was decided, the doors of the courthouse were locked to anyone who did not possess the key of privity. History shows over the course of time that laws change to protect the consumers. That change began with the creation of exceptions to an otherwise well established general rule. The first exception was when the seller knew that a product was dangerous but failed to disclose the danger to the buyer. The second exception involved products that were deemed inherently or imminently dangerous, such as guns, explosives, food and drink, and drugs. In 1916, came the historic decision in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., were MacPherson was injured when one of the wooden wheels of his automobile crumbled. Justice Benjamin Cardozo looked at the “inherent danger” exception for general rule of privity. Denis W. Stearns wrote that Justice Benjamin Cardozo stated, “We hold, then, that the principle of [inherent danger] is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully” (para 10). All state courts agreed with the case and privity had been swept aside. Now, a person injured by a defective product could sue the manufacturer for negligence even if he had purchased the product from another person. If someone gets hurt by a product then it should not matter who owns it only why they got hurt and how can we fix it. Throughout, history the law changed more and more to protect us so we need to define what falls under the product liability law. There are five claims of many under product liability that I will explain out of out text book, Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment. I will explain manufacturing defects and design defects claims. First, is manufacturing defects which, “occur when the product does not conform to its intended design at the time it leaves the manufacture’s hands” (p.500). For example, when Ford vehicles were losing control and flipping over due to manufacturing defects in Firestone’s tires. Next, design defects would occur when, “a product is defective in design when its foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by a reasonable alternative design, and the omission of that design rendered the product not reasonably safe” (p. 500). For example, a car that is designed with only three wheels might be considered defectively designed because it flips over too easily. A very serious claim for a manufacture of a product is negligence. Negligence is defined, “as a failure to use reasonable care, with harm to another party occurring as a result” (p. 166). Many cases typically involve one or more of the following claims: (1) negligent manufacture of goods, (2) negligent inspection, (3) negligent failure to provide adequate warnings, and (4) negligent design. For example, a manufacture not putting a warning on cigarettes that states, smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth or low birth weight is susceptible to lawsuits. Next, strict liability is, “liability without fault or more precisely, liability irrespective of fault” (p. 166). In this claim the plaintiff need not prove intent, recklessness, negligence, or any other kind of wrongfulness. A good example would be the case of Phillips v. Cricket Lighters. Robyn Williams’s son got her lighter out of her purse and was able to light it due to the lack of any child-resistant feature. The result was their house catching on fire and three people dying. The last claim would be breech of warranty, which under the UCC includes express and implied warranties. An express warranty can be created in one of three ways: through an affirmation of fact made by the seller to the buyer. This affirmation must relate to the goods, it must become part of the basis of the bargain. Also, an express warranty can be created by spoken words during negotiations or written into a sales contract. An example of express warranty under affirmation of fact would be that Dodge states its Ram 1500 5.7 Liter Hemi produces 345 Horsepower though in fact it only produces 300 horsepower. This could create an express warranty because they promised that the 5.7 Liter Hemi would produce 345 Horsepower. When, in fact, it only produced 300 horsepower. Implied warranty is, “a warranty created by operation of law rather than the seller’s express statements” (p. 485). For example, the Dodge dealer suggesting that you buy a specific vehicle for hauling a trailer in effect is promising that the vehicle will be suitable for that purpose. If that vehicle does not haul the trailer how the dealer said it would then you can’t go after him. Now, since we know what claims can be filed under product liability law we can discuss a couple articles. My local paper contained my first article which was very heart wrenching involving a local woman and her cat named Precious. The name of the article was “Local Woman Joins Suit Against Pet Food Companies.” According to Erin Madison, Tanya Brummett came home on March 9 to find that her cat Precious would not get up. Her cat would not eat or drink so Tanya and her husband took Precious to the veterinarian where she died right in front of there eyes. A week later, Ontario-based Menu Foods recalled more than 40 brands of cat and dog food with the list growing. The food that Brummett was feeding her cat was one of the foods that were later recalled. Now Brummett is one of the hundreds nationwide who have joined a class-action lawsuit filed against Menu Foods, Iams, and Proctor and Gamble. Madison, Wisconsin, based Progressive Law Group filed the lawsuit on March 20 in federal court. Jacqueline Johnson, the case’s class representative brought the case to Progressive Law Group when her cat got sick a week after the recall. Johnson’s cat Gumbie survived this ordeal but still requires injections to live. Progressive has been all over the news trying to get her story out to all the other pet owners going through this painful process. When Brummett saw this on the news she went on the Internet and found the Web site and singed up to be a plaintiff. Brummett also called Iams about her cat and they told her to send a copy of the vet records and a can of the food to be tested. She received a letter back from Iams stating that they would refund her for the food including shipping and vet and cremation bill. One line the letter stated, “We are sorry that you and your pet have experienced such an upsetting situation” (p. 7, sec A). The letter never stated if the food tested positive or not though we can guess that it did due to Iams offering to pay for everything. Iams would never state the food tested positive because it would be evidence brought against them in court. The second article I found to be really interesting was “Product Liability Law - Protecting Consumers from Defective Products.” This article is a good brief summary of product liability law, also called "products liability". Aaron Larson stated, “The goal of product liability laws is to help protect consumers from dangerous products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the marketplace products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective” (para. 1). Jurisdiction plays a big role because every state has different product liability laws. I did not realize that a product liability action can arise from a defect in real estate such as a leaky wall or poorly installed vapor barrier that causes mold to grow inside a wall, or from a product used in real estate, such as defective siding. This is good information to know because we all will buy a house some day. In this article they cover the three theories that claims can be brought under; design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects. The plaintiff must also prove negligence, strict liability, or breech of warranty to win a case. Some laws may be adhered to closer then others depending on what state you file suit in. Great article that gives different views of product liability with some Web links to cases for an idea of what you might be getting into. I have discussed what product liability is and the history, definitions of terms, and a couple articles, now it is time to brief two cases that involve product liability law. The first case I will brief is Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co... Jarvis testified at trial that, in 1991, she started her six-day-old Ford Aerostar in the driveway of her home in rural Woodstock, New York, with her foot lightly on the brake. After she turned on the ignition, the engine suddenly revved and the vehicle took off. As the van accelerated, Jarvis pumped the brake with both feet, looking down to make sure her feet were on the brake pedal. The van would not stop even with both feet on the brake. She steered to avoid people walking in the road and then heard saplings brushing against the side of the van before she blacked out. Jarvis testified that she had driven many different kinds of vehicles over the twenty-four years since she had first acquired a driver's license with no accidents. Jarvis's father, who was standing nearby, testified that he saw the car starting off at an unusually fast speed for his daughter. As the Aerostar passed him, he saw Jarvis holding on to the steering wheel very tight and her body was going back and forth ever so slightly. As a result of the accident, Jarvis sustained a traumatic head injury and could not return to her previous employment. The van traveled approximately 330 feet and did some braking that slowed it to 15 to 20 miles per hour before it entered a ditch and turned over. There were a total of 560 Aerostar’s reported to Ford that had similar problems of sudden acceleration. Expert, George Pope testified that the Aerostar’s brakes work off of vacuum and at full throttle if the brakes were not pumped correctly it would feel like you have no brakes. Another expert Samuel J. Ser, an electrical engineer, offered a theory of electrical malfunction and mechanical reasons why the van suddenly accelerated. His theory focused on the design of the Aerostar cruise control system. Another theory was when Jarvis offered three possible explanations at trial for why the dump valve did not permit Jarvis to stop the Aerostar from accelerating: (1) the dump valve was malfunctioning; (2) Jarvis was pumping the brakes, causing the Aerostar to reinstate the electrical malfunction and commence acceleration every time her foot rose from the pedal in the pumping action; or (3) Jarvis had not pressed far enough on the brakes to activate the dump valve. Ford claims that the accident was driver error by Jarvis and that the dump valve would work properly even if the cruise control system malfunctioned. Ford’s experts did not find anything wrong with the Aerostar after the accident and the jury concluded that Ford negligently designed the cruise control system and that Jarvis’s negligence was also a substantial factor is causing the accident. The court awarded 65% of the fault to Ford and 35% to Jarvis, because the owner’s manual directs drivers to apply the brakes firmly with one stroke and not in a pumping action. With Ford still sticking to driver error it moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Jarvis appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. District court’s judgment went in favor of Jarvis since there were so many people with similar experiences with the Aerostar. This is a great case of product liability concerning design defects with the Ford Aerostar. I believe that the case was decided correctly from the evidence provided and with so many similar incidents how could it be driver error. The next case I will brief is Steen v. Petty-Fitzmaurice concerning another vehicle though this one operates in the water. On August 28, 2000, William Steen, while operating a Sea-Doo personal watercraft on Lake Jordan, was struck by another Sea-Doo personal watercraft operated by Petty-Fitzmaurice. The impact of Petty-Fitzmaurice's personal watercraft severed Steen's right leg below the knee. William Steen sued Petty-Fitzmaurice on the grounds that he negligently or wantonly operated the personal watercraft that struck Steen. She also sued Bombardier, Inc., and Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, and Yamaha of Sylacauga, Inc., the seller of the personal watercrafts, on the grounds that they violated the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("the AEMLD") and that they were negligent in designing, testing, distributing, selling, and failing to recall the personal watercrafts in question, and in failing to providing adequate warnings. According to the lawsuit, Plaintiffs alleged that the personal watercraft was defectively designed because the personal watercraft did not have effective steering after the operator, Mr. Fitzmaurice, let off the throttle. This made it virtually impossible for Petty-Fitzmaurice to avoid hitting Steen. An Elmore County, Alabama, jury returned a $3.43 million verdict against William Petty-Fitzmaurice though after some problems with the jury they had to have a retrial. The new trial verdict was recently settled for a confidential amount. This case would fall under negligence on the part of Petty-Fitzmaurice's and design defects with the steering and throttle on Bombardiers personal watercraft. I believe that the case was settled correctly with the exception of Petty-Fitzmaurice's should have not been sued because he would have never hit Steen if it was not for the faulty steering and throttle. I would have sued the manufacture of the personal watercraft since they were at fault under product liability. In conclusion, I discussed what product liability is and the history, definitions, articles, and cases involving product liability. Product liability is very tricky because it seems very difficult to prove. The laws cover many different aspects from manufacturing defects to breech of warranty. My opinion is that companies and manufactures should be held to a higher degree concerning product liability because we trust them with anything and everything that they produce. The government should hold manufactures to higher test and inspection standards. Also, anything coming into the US should be inspected with the same or higher regulations then that of the US companies. There are many Web sites such as www.Recalls.gov that have up to date information on every product that is made or that enters the US market legally. I know I will be more aware about product recalls because they could save my family’s life, someone else’s, or my pets. If we were to hold manufactures to higher product liability standards we would not have our pets and our families dying due to poisoned food or accidents that could have been prevented.
Works Cited
Cornell Law School, WEX, Accessed 20 April 2007. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Products_liability
Larson, Aaron. “Product Liability Law - Protecting Consumers from Defective Products.” ExpertLaw. Accessed 20 April 2007. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/product_liability/product_liability.html
Madison, Erin. “Local Woman Joins Suit Against Pet Food Companies.” Great Falls Tribune 26 April 2007: 1A-7A.
Mallor, Jane P., James A. Barnes, Thomas Bowers, and Arlen W. Langvardt. Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment. 13th Ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007.
“Petty-Fitzmaurice v. Steen.” 2003. Supreme Court of Alabama. http://www.wallacejordan.com/decisions/Opinions2003/1020560.pdf
Stearns, Denis W. 2001 “AN INTRODUCTION TO PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW.” Accessed 20 April 2007. http://www.marlerclark.com/WPMarlerClark.pdf