Negligence And Product Liability Are Two Of Our Main Topics ✓ Solved

Negligence and product liability are two of our main topics.

Negligence and product liability are two of our main topics for this week. Negligence is an unintentional tort because it happens by accident. Product liability arises when one is injured by a defective product. Consider the scenarios below. Choose one and determine if it describes negligence or product liability. Explain your answer and be sure to discuss the elements of any claims that may arise.

Scenarios:

1. Daisy is driving in her car when her phone chimes. She picks up her phone and sees a text from her friend. While responding to the text, Daisy runs a red light and causes an accident.

2. Janet just moved from Florida to Minnesota and is enjoying the scenery of a beautiful snowfall when she sees a person slip and fall on the ice on the sidewalk in front of her house.

3. Larry is a lumberjack. He decides to purchase a new chainsaw. The first time Larry uses the chainsaw, the product malfunctions and Larry is injured.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper analyzes scenario 3 (Larry’s chainsaw injury) and explains why it primarily implicates product liability rather than ordinary negligence. The discussion sets out the governing doctrines, the specific elements a plaintiff must prove, the likely theories available (strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty), and common defenses. Key authorities are cited to show the doctrinal bases for recovery and how they apply to a chainsaw malfunction injury.

Why product liability applies

Larry’s injury from a chainsaw that "malfunctions" on first use is the paradigmatic fact pattern for a products liability claim. Courts treat injuries caused by defective products differently from ordinary interpersonal accidents because the focus is on the product's condition and the commercial enterprise that put it into the stream of commerce (Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A) (Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, 1965). In a typical product liability case, plaintiffs may pursue strict liability in tort, negligence in manufacture or design, and breach of warranty under commercial law (Prosser & Keeton, 1984; Dobbs, 2000).

Strict liability: elements and application

Strict products liability is often the plaintiff’s preferred theory for consumer injuries caused by defective products. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, the plaintiff must generally prove: (1) the defendant was a seller engaged in the business of selling the product; (2) the product was sold in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous to the user; (3) the defect existed when the product left the seller’s control; and (4) the defect was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury (Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, 1965). Landmark cases such as Greenman v. Yuba Power Products illustrate strict liability application where a power tool caused injury on ordinary use (Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., 1963).

Applied to Larry: if the chainsaw had a manufacturing defect (e.g., a loose chain-retaining screw, improper brake assembly, or defective throttle mechanism) that caused it to behave dangerously on first use, and the chainsaw was being used as intended, Larry would likely satisfy the §402A elements. The fact that the injury occurred on first use strengthens the inference that the defect existed before consumer use rather than arising from post-sale misuse or wear (Prosser & Keeton, 1984).

Types of defects and corresponding claims

Three principal defect theories arise in product liability (Prosser & Keeton, 1984):

• Manufacturing defect: the specific chainsaw unit deviated from its intended design because of an error in manufacture. This is a strong theory when malfunction occurs on first use.
• Design defect: the chainsaw’s design is inherently unsafe even if manufactured as intended. This theory requires showing a reasonable alternative design or that the design rendered the product unreasonably dangerous (Dobbs, 2000).
• Failure to warn (marketing defect): the manufacturer failed to provide adequate instructions or warnings about known risks (e.g., safe starting procedures, required protective equipment), making the product unreasonably dangerous (Prosser & Keeton, 1984).

For Larry, a manufacturing defect or failure-to-warn claim will be most plausible. Manufacturing defects are especially persuasive where a new product malfunctions out of the box (Greenman, 1963). If the product had a latent defect that would not be obvious to an ordinary user and no adequate warning was given about a known risk, a failure-to-warn claim could also succeed (Restatement §402A comments).

Negligence claims in product cases

A negligence theory against the manufacturer requires proof of standard negligence elements: duty, breach, causation (both factual and proximate), and damages. The manufacturer owes a duty to design, manufacture, and inspect products with reasonable care (Prosser & Keeton, 1984). Evidence of negligent manufacturing practices, inadequate quality control, or negligent design decisions could establish breach. Where a plaintiff can trace the malfunction to negligent conduct (e.g., improper assembly at the factory), negligence provides an alternative route to recovery, though strict liability often removes the need to show fault (Dobbs, 2000).

Breach of warranty and commercial remedies

Under commercial law, Larry might also assert breach of implied warranty of merchantability (that the chainsaw is fit for its ordinary purpose) or express warranty claims if the seller made specific safety claims (UCC principles echo product warranty doctrines). Warranty claims complement tort remedies and may be useful especially when privity or other procedural issues arise (Prosser & Keeton, 1984).

Defenses and comparative fault

Defendants may raise several defenses: (1) misuse or alteration of the product by Larry that was not reasonably foreseeable, (2) assumption of risk if Larry knowingly engaged in danger, or (3) comparative negligence reducing recovery if Larry’s own conduct contributed (e.g., ignoring clearly posted warnings) (Dobbs, 2000). In many jurisdictions, comparative fault principles will apportion damages rather than bar recovery entirely.

Practical evidence and causation issues

Proving a manufacturing defect often depends on product inspection, expert testimony, and preserving the chainsaw for forensic analysis (Prosser & Keeton, 1984). Chain-of-custody and evidence of identical injuries in other units (recall data, complaints) bolster a plaintiff’s case (CPSC guidance). If the manufacturer conducted a voluntary recall or there were prior incident reports, those facts will support causation and show notice of a defect.

Conclusion

Larry’s scenario most directly implicates product liability law. The most straightforward claim is strict liability for a defective product under Restatement §402A and the doctrine established in Greenman. Complementary theories include negligence in manufacturing or design and breach of warranty. Successful recovery will depend on proving a defect that made the chainsaw unreasonably dangerous when it left the seller’s control and that the defect caused Larry’s injury. Preservation of the product and expert analysis will be critical, and the manufacturer may defend on misuse, unforeseeable alteration, or comparative fault grounds.

References

• Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A (Am. Law Inst. 1965).
• Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, D. B. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.). West Publishing.
• Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963).
• Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 (1944).
• Dobbs, D. B. (2000). The Law of Torts. West Group.
• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Product Safety and Liability resources. U.S. CPSC Webpage (2020–2022).
• Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. "Products Liability." LII/Legal Encyclopedia (overview of defect and liability doctrines).
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Distracted Driving and Vehicle Safety Reports (for comparison of accident causation concepts), NHTSA (2021).
• Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2019). Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.). Thomson Reuters. (Definitions of negligence, product liability, and related terms.)
• Article: T. W. Merrill & E. J. Shoben, "Manufacturing Defects and Proof Problems," Journal of Tort Law (law review articles on proof strategies and evidentiary challenges in product cases).