Defenses in Products Liability under Advanced Torts
🔷 Defenses in Products Liability (Advanced Torts)
Products liability is an area of tort law that holds manufacturers, distributors, and sellers liable for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products. However, there are several affirmative defenses that a defendant may assert to avoid or limit liability.
These defenses vary depending on the theory of liability (strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty), but many are common across all.
🔹 Common Defenses in Products Liability
1. Assumption of Risk
Definition: The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk associated with the use of a defective product.
The defendant must show the plaintiff:
Had actual knowledge of the defect,
Understood the risk involved, and
Voluntarily chose to encounter the risk.
Key Case:
Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews, 291 So. 2d 169 (Miss. 1974)
The plaintiff was injured while trying to start a tractor with a known defective starter. The court held that assumption of risk was a valid defense because the plaintiff was aware of the defect and continued to use the product.
Legal Effect:
May result in a complete bar to recovery in jurisdictions that follow traditional tort doctrines.
In comparative fault jurisdictions, it may reduce the plaintiff’s recovery.
2. Product Misuse (Unforeseeable Use)
Definition: The product was used in a manner not intended or reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer.
Misuse must be the proximate cause of the injury.
If the misuse was foreseeable, the defense fails.
Key Case:
Ellis v. Louisville Ladder Co., 796 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1986)
The plaintiff used a ladder in a way contrary to instructions. The court found the misuse foreseeable, so the defense did not bar recovery.
Legal Effect:
A complete defense if the misuse was unforeseeable.
In comparative fault jurisdictions, it may lead to apportioned liability.
3. Comparative Fault (Comparative Negligence)
Definition: The plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their injury.
Even in strict liability, some courts allow comparative fault principles.
Plaintiff’s damages are reduced in proportion to their fault.
Key Case:
Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978)
The California Supreme Court held that comparative fault applies in strict products liability, allowing reduction of damages based on plaintiff's contributory negligence.
Legal Effect:
Reduces, but does not eliminate, the plaintiff’s recovery.
Does not bar the claim entirely unless the plaintiff is over 50% at fault (in modified comparative fault jurisdictions).
4. Statute of Limitations / Statute of Repose
Definition:
Statute of Limitations: Plaintiff must bring the claim within a certain time (e.g., 2–4 years) after the injury.
Statute of Repose: Limits liability after a fixed number of years from the sale or manufacture of the product, regardless of when the injury occurs.
Key Case:
Oceanside Union Free School Dist. v. Bender & Co., 506 N.Y.S.2d 29 (App. Div. 1986)
The court dismissed a suit under the statute of repose because the product was sold more than 10 years before the injury occurred.
Legal Effect:
A complete bar to the claim if the time has expired.
5. State of the Art Defense
Definition: The manufacturer used the best technology and knowledge available at the time the product was made.
Not a defense to defect per se but may negate negligence or failure to warn claims.
Key Case:
Beshada v. Johns-Manville Corp., 90 N.J. 191 (1982)
The court rejected the “state of the art” defense in strict liability claims involving failure to warn, holding that liability attaches even if the danger was unknowable at the time.
Legal Effect:
Accepted in negligence cases.
Often rejected in strict liability jurisdictions.
6. Preemption (Federal or State Law)
Definition: A product liability claim is barred or limited because federal or state regulations govern the product.
For example, medical devices or drugs approved by the FDA may be protected.
Key Case:
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that federal law preempted state-law claims against a manufacturer of an FDA-approved medical device.
Legal Effect:
Can completely bar state tort claims in regulated industries.
7. Unavoidably Unsafe Products
Definition: Some products, by their nature, cannot be made safe (e.g., vaccines, prescription drugs) but are still necessary.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A recognizes this defense if:
The product is properly prepared and
Includes adequate warnings.
Key Case:
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)
The Supreme Court held that vaccine manufacturers are immune from certain design defect claims, reinforcing the idea that some products are inherently risky but socially beneficial.
Legal Effect:
Valid defense in highly regulated or medically necessary products.
Requires proper warning and preparation.
8. Sophisticated User or Intermediary Defense
Definition: The defendant may argue that it was reasonable to rely on a knowledgeable intermediary (such as an employer or doctor) to warn or protect the end user.
Key Case:
Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 564 (2009)
The court held that a manufacturer could rely on a sophisticated intermediary (U.S. Navy) to warn users about asbestos exposure.
Legal Effect:
Shifts the duty to warn from manufacturer to intermediary.
Often used in industrial and medical product cases.
🔹 Summary Table of Defenses
| Defense | Effect | Applicable To | Key Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assumption of Risk | Complete bar (in some jurisdictions) | All theories | Ford v. Matthews |
| Product Misuse | Complete bar if unforeseeable | All theories | Ellis v. Louisville Ladder |
| Comparative Fault | Reduces recovery | Negligence, strict liability | Daly v. GM |
| Statute of Limitations | Complete bar | All theories | Oceanside Union v. Bender |
| State of the Art | Defense to negligence, not strict liability | Negligence, failure to warn | Beshada v. Johns-Manville |
| Federal Preemption | Complete bar | State law claims | Riegel v. Medtronic |
| Unavoidably Unsafe Products | Defense with adequate warning | Drugs, vaccines, medical devices | Bruesewitz v. Wyeth |
| Sophisticated User | Shifts duty to warn | Industrial, medical products | Taylor v. Elliott |
✅ Conclusion
While products liability generally favors protecting consumers from defective products, numerous defenses allow manufacturers and sellers to limit or avoid liability when:
The plaintiff was at fault,
The product was used improperly,
Warnings were adequate, or
Laws limit liability due to public policy or regulation.
Each defense must be carefully evaluated based on the jurisdiction and the facts of the case.
RELATED Blog
0 comments