Products liability it is a specific area of tort law, which covers contract law previsions, and this matter is important to the general public. The creation of this field of law originated during the Industrial Revolution based on the breach of warranty of products. In essence, this is a breach of contract, but courts soon realized that this approach limited the liability of the manufacturer, negatively impacting consumers with less power in the contractual agreement.
This approach of tort law is based on simple principles, namely that products are bought by consumers to satisfy a certain need. The basic expectation of a consumer is the ability of the purchased product to meet one’s needs.
Two arguments are used by this doctrine to establish when a manufacturer has breached his or her responsibilities, triggering a products liability cause:
- Implied warranty of merchantability: According to the rules of the Uniform Commercial Code 2-314, the base to determine a product’s viability is based on how the product is ordinarily used. In order to be acceptable, the product needs to be made of an appropriate, average quality. This means that the product fulfills consumer expectations, and does not cause any damage to consumers.
- Negligence: On the other hand, the manufacturer has to take all possible precautions in order to prevent and to avoid physical harm resulting from the use of one’s products.
How can we determine if the courts will believe that a certain product, which allegedly harmed a consumer, was not the fault of the manufacturer? A manufacturer could use “the risk-utility test” to clarify one’s argument. If the costs of redesigning the product are ignored or if the manufacturer does not properly warn the consumer of a product’s possible risks, then the manufacturer will be held liable for any damages based on product negligence.
However, we can point out that if the product does not fulfill the expectations that a consumer would reasonably expect, the manufacturer should be responsible for the inefficiency of the product. Again, we need to address reasonableness as a potential factor in determining a claim. If a consumer buys a car, it can be reasonably assumed that one would use the car for transportation. In this case, if the car does not work, one would use the implied merchant warranty approach to recover damages. On the other hand, if a consumer goes to a restaurant and suffers food poisoning, and the food was poorly prepared, then the customer can expect to recover damages based on the negligence of the establishment.
There are three potential causes of wrongdoing that can be used as arguments in a products liability claim, and these can be avoided by improving the policies and practices of a production process. The next three blogs discuss these causes of action in detail, which are: manufacturing defects, design error and failure to warn the consumer.
Reference: Legal > Requirements for Punitive Damages