PRODUCT LIABILITY

UNDER WHICH LAW WEE SEEK ITS JUSTIFICATION

Tort Law
Law of contracts

. Tort Law
Can arise with the concept of negligence. When there is a breach of duty of
care because of the negligence of manufacturer, seller or service provider ,
product liability can be imposed
Strict liability for product liability — It is assumed that a consumer will get a
product or service in a proper condition or as per the anticipated
expectations of the service. If this is not met, we can impose strict liability.

. Law of Contracts
Whenever there is a breach of contract or warranty by the manufacturer,
seller or service provider , product liability can arise under the law of
contracts.

. In India we’ve bought a third way under the Consumer Protection Act

HISTORY OF PRODUCT LIABILITY JURISPRUDENCE

The concept originated in USA

3
Earlier it was only claimed on the basis of breach of warranty as per the
contract. Because of certain limitations like these the scope was expanded.
Limitations
- not necessary that there will be a warranty period clause in every contract
- warranty clause can be repealed or amended. For eg, E contracts we
2
enter into
- it only governed the contracts which were under the privity of contract.
Only the parties under the privity can get the remedy. A third person injured
because of a faulty product or service had no remedy.

Case 1: Mac Pherson vs Buick Motor Co.

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident because of a defect in the wheels
of the car
The defendant co took the defence that they only assembled the car and
1
bought the wheels from third party. when the car was purchased the
plaintiff purchased it from a dealer and not the company
The court abandoned the concept of privity of contract in this case.
Even though the third party is outside the privity of contract, it is a duty to
provide a safe product. The contract was between the dealer and the
 plaintiff but the company had a duty to provide a safe vehicle to the
consumer.
Case 2: Escola vs Coca Cola Bottling Co.
Coca Cola had no strict inspection mechanism. By mistake a foreign
substance was added. The consumer bought a big bottle and started
drinking. After consuming a substantial amount over a period of time he
saw the foreign substance.
Coca Cola took the defence that the bottle is always sealed and the product
followed all the safety regulations.
The consumer couldn’t prove that there was a fault on behalf of the
company.
A manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has place
on the market knowing that it is to be used without inspection proves to
have a defect that causes injury to human being.
Even if the plaintiff is not able to prove all the elements of negligence
product liability can be imposed. If injury is caused, manufacturer can be
held absolutely liable.
Case 3: Greeman vs Yuba Power Product Inc.
It made a kitchen appliance and got its patent.
The invention was a power knife and it started injuring the customers. It was
difficult to control.
The co said that it ran all the safety tests and they warned the customers
about the product. The knife was power operated and needed time to have
control on.
The Co was held liable as the consumers were getting injured and there
was negligence as there a faulty design of the product.

Case 4: Heningsen vs Bloomfield Motors Co.

In this case, the plaintiff’s wife suffered an injury. She was driving and there
was a turn. On the other side of the turn, water pit had accumulated. There
was a defect in the steering wheel. She had to turn right but the car turned
the other side because of the faulty design and landed the car along with
the wife into the water pit.
The defence that the company took was that the wife could have done it
and thus they were not liable. They also said that the plaintiff had
specifically signed the waiver contract which waived off the warranty
clause and thus they were not liable for the injury caused.
The defendants were held liable because of the theory of implied safety/
implied warranty of safety. If the plaintiff proves that there was a breach of
the implied warranty of safety then the defendant can be held liable for
product liability.