 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
|
Barker v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc., 573 P.2d 443 |
Supreme Court of California |
1978 |
|||
|
Chapter |
16 |
Title |
Products Liability |
||
|
Page |
659 |
Topic |
The Definition Of Defective |
||
|
Quick Notes |
High Lift Loader Injury |
||||
|
Book Name |
Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises. Weaver, Third Edition. ISBN: 978-1-4224-7220-0. |
||||
|
Issue |
o Whether trial court erred in instructing the jury that strict liability for a defect in design of a product is based on a finding that the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use? Yes |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Jury returned verdict for the defendants (Lull). |
|
Supreme |
o Reversed. |
|
Facts |
Reason |
Rules |
|
o Pl - Barker o Df - Lull Engineering Company, Inc. What happened? o Ray Barker was injured at construction site at the University of California while operating a high lift loader. Claim o He claimed his injuries were proximately caused by the alleged defective design of the loader. o He instituted a tort action seeking to recover damages for his injuries. Trial Court o Jury returned verdict for the Dfs. Appealed o Barker appealed on the basis that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that strict liability for a defect in design of a product is based on a finding that the product was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. Supreme Court o Judgment Reversed |
A Product is Defective in Design either (Consumer-Contemplation Test) 1. if the product has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, OR Risk Benefit Test 2. if,in light of the relevant factors discussed below, the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. Relevant FACTORS to consider. 1. The gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, 2. The likelihood that such danger would occur, 3. The mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, 4. The financial cost of an improved design, and 5. The adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.
Dual Standard o Assures an injured Pl protection from products that either fall below consumer expectations or on that, on balance, are not as safely designed as they should be. o It allows a manufacturer to demonstrate the complexity of design and trade-offs that are required in alternative designs. o The trier of facts must focus on the product and not the manufacturers conduct. o The Pl need not prove that the manufacturer acted unreasonably or negligently.
Unreasonably Dangerous Rejection o We flatly rejected the suggestion that recovery in a products liability action should be permitted only if a product is more dangerous than contemplated by the average consumer. o This would diminish the manufacturer's responsibility for injuries caused by that product. o The jury might interpret the language as shielding a defendant from liability so long as the product did not fall below the ordinary consumer's expectations.
The term defect o Neither self-defining, nor susceptible to a single definition applicable in all contexts.
Defective Product (Deviation from the Norm) o A defective product is one that differs from the manufacturer's intended result or from other ostensibly identical units of the same product line.
This case establishes o A product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. o A manufacturer is strictly liable for resulting injuries.
Purpose of Strict Liability o Is to relieve an injured plaintiff of many of the onerous evidentiary burdens inherent in a negligence cause of action.
Proximate Case and Burden o Pl must show that the injury was proximately cause by the products design. o The burden shifts to the Df to prove the product is not defective.
Public Policy Risk Benefit Theory o The manufacturer should bear the burden of persuading the trier of facts that its product should not be judged defective.
Product is Defective in Design 1. If the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, OR 2. If the plaintiff proves that the product's design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to prove, in light of the relevant factors discussed above, that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.
|
|
|
Rules |
|
Design Defect: High Lift Loader Injury
Proximate Case and Burden o Pl must show that the injury was proximately cause by the products design. o The burden shifts to the Df to prove the product is not defective.
Public Policy Risk Benefit Theory o The manufacturer should bear the burden of persuading the trier of facts that its product should not be judged defective.
Design Defect This does apply to the entire product line. The product was made according to the specifications. The machine or worker did not make a mistake. Here the actual design is wrong, the product is unsafe because of the design itself.
o Consumer-expectation test o Did the Product fail to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect, when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. If it did, then it has a design defect.
o Risk-utility test
o Benefits Of Design > Risk of Danger No design defect o Benefit Of Design < Risk of Danger Design Defect o The majority rule requires that the Pl prove that a safer alternative design must exist for to successfully prove strict liability for a design defect. o Existence of alternative design (Texas statute; RESTATEMENT3D)
Design Factors To Consider 1. The gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, 2. The likelihood that such danger would occur, 3. The mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, 4. The financial cost of an improved design, and 5. The adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.
|
|
Class Notes |
|
Which is easier to detect: Manufacture or design? Manufacture
Manufacture Defective Product (Deviation from the Norm) o A defective product is one that differs from the manufacturer's intended result or from other ostensibly identical units of the same product line.
Determining Manufacturer Defect o Compare defective product and a good product on the same line. If there is a difference there you can say there was a defect.
o If both products have issue, then the best evidence are the blueprints and specifications, then you compare that to the product. If they differ, then there is a manufacturing defect.
For design defects you cannot use the deviation from the norm test, because all products coming of the line are bad.
A Product is Defective in Design either (Consumer-Contemplation Test) 1. if the product has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, OR Risk Benefit Test 2. if,in light of the relevant factors discussed below, the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. Relevant FACTORS to consider. 1. The gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, 2. The likelihood that such danger would occur, 3. The mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, 4. The financial cost of an improved design, and 5. The adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.
What is the problem with saying unreasonably dangerous for intended use? o Under the consumer contemplation test, the consumer does not know what to expect, because he would have no idea how safe the product could be made. He would hold the product to a low esteem.
Purpose of strict liability. o It is hard for the Pl to know exactly what when wrong.
Proximate Case and Burden o Pl must show that the injury was proximately cause by the products design. o The burden shifts to the Df to prove the product is not defective.
Public Policy Risk Benefit Theory o The manufacturer should bear the burden of persuading the trier of facts that its product should not be judged defective.
Majority Rule o Risk-Benefit Test
For the exam, know both tests. |