Products Liability (Strict Liability)
What is the Products Liability (Strict Liability)?
Manufacturers and sellers of defective products are strictly liable for injuries caused by those products, regardless of fault. The plaintiff need not prove negligence, only that the product was defective and caused harm.
Source: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963)
Definition
Strict products liability holds manufacturers, distributors, and retailers liable for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of whether they exercised reasonable care. Established in the landmark case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products and codified in Restatement (Second) of Torts section 402A, this doctrine reflects the policy that commercial sellers are best positioned to bear and distribute the costs of product injuries. The plaintiff must prove the product was defective when it left the defendant's control and that the defect caused the injury.
There are three types of product defects. Manufacturing defects occur when a product departs from its intended design, making it more dangerous than other units of the same product. Design defects exist when the entire product line is unreasonably dangerous because of an inadequate design. Courts use either the consumer expectations test (whether the product is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect) or the risk-utility test (whether the risks of the design outweigh its benefits, considering the availability of a reasonable alternative design). Warning or information defects arise when the product lacks adequate instructions or warnings about risks that are not obvious.
The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability refines these categories. For manufacturing defects, strict liability clearly applies. For design and warning defects, the Third Restatement moves toward a reasonableness standard, requiring the plaintiff to show a reasonable alternative design (for design defects) or that reasonable instructions or warnings could have reduced the risk (for warning defects). This shift has been controversial, with some courts and commentators arguing it reintroduces negligence concepts into what was supposed to be a strict liability framework.
Key Elements
- 1The defendant is a commercial seller or distributor of the product
- 2The product was defective (manufacturing, design, or warning defect)
- 3The defect existed when the product left the defendant's control
- 4The defect was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury
- 5The product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner
- 6No substantial alteration of the product occurred after sale
Landmark Cases
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
59 Cal.2d 57 (1963)
Established strict liability in tort for defective products, holding manufacturers liable without proof of negligence.
Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
24 Cal.2d 453 (1944)
Justice Traynor's concurrence laid the groundwork for strict products liability, arguing manufacturers should bear responsibility for defective products.
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
20 Cal.3d 413 (1978)
Established the dual test for design defects, allowing plaintiffs to use either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility balancing test.
Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.
8 Cal.3d 121 (1972)
Eliminated the requirement that the product be unreasonably dangerous, holding that a defective condition alone is sufficient for strict liability.
Exam Tips
- Identify the type of defect — manufacturing, design, or warning — because each has different proof requirements and potentially different standards.
- For design defects, determine whether the jurisdiction uses the consumer expectations test, the risk-utility test, or both.
- Remember that privity of contract is not required — strict liability extends through the chain of distribution to any foreseeable user or bystander.
- Always consider whether the plaintiff used the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner, including foreseeable misuse.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Failing to distinguish between manufacturing and design defects — manufacturing defects involve a departure from the intended design, while design defects affect the entire product line.
- Applying strict liability to non-commercial sellers — casual sellers (like a person selling a used car) are generally not subject to strict products liability.
- Forgetting that under the Restatement (Third), design and warning defect claims effectively require showing a reasonable alternative, blurring the line with negligence.
Memory Aid
Three D's of defects: Departure from design (manufacturing), Dangerous design (design defect), Deficient warnings (failure to warn).