Part 4- Sales, Chapter 20: Product Liability, Doc 3

Key Points Summary on Product Liability and Negligence-Based Claims 1. Moss v. Batesville Casket Co. o Background: The plaintiffs purchased a wooden cherry casket for aesthetic reasons, knowing it wouldn’t be airtight like a metal casket. After their mother’s body was exhumed over two years later, the casket was found cracked and partially dismantled. They claimed breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, arguing that they reasonably expected the casket to preserve the body indefinitely. o Court’s Decision: The court found no breach of either warranty. There was no reliance on the seller’s expertise for a particular preservation purpose, and the ordinary purpose of the casket was served by holding the remains for burial. Thus, the implied warranty of fitness did not apply, and the casket was deemed merchantable as there was no evidence of harm to the remains. 2. Negligence-Based Product Liability Claims o Types of Negligence: 1. Negligent Manufacture: Asserts that improper assembly, materials, or packaging caused the defect. Plaintiffs can use res ipsa loquitur (where negligence is inferred from the defect itself) to support claims if evidence of fault is primarily under the defendant’s control. 2. Negligent Inspection: Imposes a duty on manufacturers to inspect for defects that could pose foreseeable risks. Middlemen typically only have a duty to inspect if they know or should know about potential defects. 3. Negligent Failure to Warn: Requires sellers to provide warnings when there is a foreseeable risk of harm. Courts consider factors such as the severity of harm, ease of providing warnings, and effectiveness of the warning. 4. Negligent Design: Manufacturers must design products to avoid foreseeable risks. Courts use the risk-utility test, which evaluates the severity of potential harm, the foreseeability of injuries, and the availability and cost of safer designs. 3. Croskey v. BMW of North America, Inc. o Background: William Croskey was severely burned when his girlfriend’s BMW radiator neck failed, causing hot fluid to spray out. He alleged negligent design, arguing that BMW knew the plastic neck could become brittle and that alternative designs were available. o Legal Issue: Whether BMW’s design choice was negligent given the foreseeable risks, and if they had a duty to warn about risks that became apparent with aging radiators. o Court’s Analysis: The court applied Michigan’s risk-utility test, which includes evaluating foreseeable injury severity, likelihood, and the feasibility and effectiveness of safer designs. The court allowed Croskey to present evidence of similar radiator failures as circumstantial proof of negligence, supporting his claims regarding BMW’s design and the duty to warn. 4. Risk-Utility Test in Design Defects: o Factors Considered: Courts look at the social utility of the design, the practicality and availability of alternative designs, and the potential reduction of harm. This test assesses whether the manufacturer’s design decisions were reasonable given available technology and the product’s intended use. These cases highlight key elements in product liability law, demonstrating when sellers and manufacturers may be held liable for negligence in design, manufacturing, inspection, or warnings and how consumer expectations and foreseeable risks influence these determinations.