Fordham University School of Law
Course / Session
20138 TORTS12 -Conk
Extegrity Exam4 > 18.104.22.168E58233665-2.-27-3Section
The cause of action in Mass. for what in most jurisdictionwould be called a "product liability action" is a breach ofimplied warranty action. Mass Gen Laws 2-314(2)(c). The impliedwarranty is "intended to be as comprehensive as the strictliability theory of other jurisdictions" See Osorio (citingBack). Massacusetts law is "crugent in nearly all respects withthe Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A/Design Defect ClaimUnder Mass. implied warranty law, products must be designedso that they are fit for the ordinary purposes for which suchgoods are used. A product is reasonably fit for its purposes ifthe design prevents the reasonably foreseeable risks attendingthe product's use in the setting. In this case, the ASR MetallicHip must be reasonably safe to be used in individuals bodies.To determine if a product meets the standard of "reasonablysafe," two approaches can be used (1) a consumer expectationstest or (2) a risk-utility analysis. Both are appropriate underMass. law, but a consumper expectation test is only employed whenit is within the provine of the the jury to understand thedefect. If expert testimony is needed, a risk-utility analysis isfavored. Overall, the majority of cases in Mass., are tried on arisk-utility analysis. See e.g., Osorio.
Consumer Expectations Test