Strict Liability

Strict Liability
The question this week deals with product liability, on the ground of strict liability. Bob was shopping at Carl’s Hardware store. One of Carl’s employee’s named Dan was using a nail gun and it fired without warning. A nail struck Bob in the leg. After checking the nail gun Carl discovers the manufacture, Eagle Tools, Inc., improperly assembled the tool. Bob files a suit against Eagle Tools, Inc, for product liability, on the ground of strict liability. The elements for action based on strict liability will be covered, who the court will like rule in favor of, and why in the following paragraphs.
The doctrine for product liability applies to the seller of goods. This includes manufacturers, processors, assemblers, packagers, bottlers, wholesalers, distributers, and retailers. Just because an individual is injured by a product does not mean they will have a cause of action against the manufacture. There are six requirements of strict product liability that must be met. First, the product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sold it. Second, the defendant normally must be engaged in the business of selling that product. Third, the product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective state. Fourth, the plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by use or consumption of the product. Fifth, the defective condition must be the proximate cause of the harm. Sixth, the product must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained. The last item to cover is, according to Carl there was a product defect because the nail gun was improperly assembled. This would fall under product defects. The defect could be recognized as a manufacturing defect. A product has a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation of the product. (Miller & Hollowell, 2011, pg 271) Now to review the elements to see if Bob suit meets the requirements of strict product liability. The six elements discussed above will de reviewed. First, it seems the product was defective with the information provided. Second, the defendant is engaged in the business of selling that product. Eagle Tools, Inc. is the manufacturer. Third, the product seems unreasonably dangerous in its defective state. The product was dangerous beyond expectation. It fired without the trigger being activated. Fourth, Bob did incur physical harm. Fifth, was the defective condition the proximate cause of harm? This is where an argument can be made with the information provided. For Bob he believes this to be true, so he feels this is met. Sixth, with the information provided it must be assumed the product was not substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury sustained. With all the information provided I feel Bob meets the requirements to file a suit. The last two questions need to be covered. Who will the court rule in favor of and why? Up to this point it was been covered why Bob can bring suit against Eagle Tool, Inc. Let’s not forget Eagle Tool, Inc has the opportunity to provide a defense to the claim. With the information provided they have no defense under Assumption of risk, Product misuse, nor comparative negligence. It was covered above in the fifth element that there is room to argue the defective condition was the proximate cause of harm. Dan, Carl’s employee was handling the suspected improperly manufactured nail gun. The argument can be made that it was personal neglect on Dan’s part. Dan may not have known how to operate the tool and might mistakenly fired it. This has to be looked at and more information needs to be known to rule in Bob’s favor. If court can be convinced of this, Eagle Tool, Inc. should win the suit. With the information provided it is not known if the product was actually defective. Eagle Tool, Inc. has what some would say is a defendable point. If Bob can prove the device was defective, then the suit should be ruled in Bob’s favor. There are too many unanswered questions to say definitively who should win this case with the information provided.

References (1) Roger LeRoy Miller and William Eric Hollowell, Business Law (South-Western, 2011) page 271 (Miller & Hollowell, 2011, pg 271)