Products Liability and Services under Advanced Torts
Products Liability and Services under Advanced Torts
1. Introduction
Products liability is a field of tort law dealing with the liability of manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and retailers for harm caused by defective products. Traditionally, products liability focuses on physical goods. However, the intersection between products and services raises complex legal issues, especially when a service involves a defective product or vice versa.
In Advanced Torts, the distinction between liability for defective products and negligence in services becomes crucial, particularly in professional contexts (e.g., medical, legal, repair services).
2. Key Doctrines in Products Liability
There are three primary legal theories under which a plaintiff may recover for harm caused by a defective product:
A. Negligence
Duty of care owed by the manufacturer or seller.
Breach of that duty (e.g., poor design, manufacturing error).
Causation and damages.
B. Strict Liability
The defendant is liable regardless of fault, if the product was:
Defective,
Unreasonably dangerous,
The cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
C. Breach of Warranty
Express warranty: Specific promises made by the seller.
Implied warranty:
Implied warranty of merchantability (product is fit for ordinary use).
Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
3. Types of Product Defects
Manufacturing Defect – Product deviates from intended design.
Design Defect – Product is inherently dangerous due to flawed design.
Failure to Warn (Marketing Defect) – Inadequate instructions or warnings.
4. When Services Involve Products
The law distinguishes between pure service transactions and product-related transactions. If the primary purpose is service (e.g., surgery), tort claims typically fall under professional negligence, not strict products liability. However, if the transaction involves a defective product (e.g., faulty surgical implant), products liability may apply.
5. Key Case Law
Case 1: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963)
Facts: Plaintiff was injured when a power tool he bought malfunctioned due to a latent defect.
Holding: The California Supreme Court recognized strict liability in tort for defective products, holding the manufacturer liable even without proof of negligence.
Significance: Landmark case establishing strict liability in products liability law.
Case 2: Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1944) – (Concurring Opinion by Justice Traynor)
Facts: A waitress was injured when a Coke bottle exploded in her hand.
Holding: Majority applied res ipsa loquitur (negligence), but Justice Traynor argued for strict liability for manufacturers.
Significance: Laid the intellectual foundation for strict liability in products cases.
Case 3: Cunningham v. MacNeal Memorial Hospital (1970)
Facts: A patient contracted hepatitis from a blood transfusion provided during hospital treatment. The hospital claimed it was providing a service, not a product.
Holding: The court held that blood was a "product", and strict liability applied even though it was part of a medical service.
Significance: Illustrates how courts may treat certain services involving tangible items as subject to product liability.
Case 4: Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (1986)
Facts: A defective pacemaker implanted during surgery caused injury.
Holding: The court held the hospital could be held strictly liable for the defective medical device.
Significance: When a product is supplied as part of a service, liability may attach under product liability theories.
Case 5: Garcia v. Halsett (1958)
Facts: Plaintiff’s clothing was damaged during dry cleaning.
Holding: The transaction was primarily a service, not a product sale; strict liability did not apply.
Significance: Draws the line between service and product liability based on the dominant purpose of the transaction.
6. The Service vs. Product Distinction
Test Used: Predominant Purpose Test
Courts ask: Is the transaction primarily a sale of goods or provision of services?
If goods dominate → products liability applies.
If services dominate → service provider liable under negligence, not strict liability.
7. Application in Professional Contexts
A. Medical Services
Surgical tools and implants (products) can trigger product liability.
Diagnosis, prescription, or treatment errors are negligence-based.
B. Legal Services
No product involved — claims are for malpractice, not product liability.
C. Repair Services
Defective replacement parts → product liability.
Faulty repair work → service negligence.
8. Summary Table
| Legal Theory | Applies To | Requires Fault? | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict Liability | Defective physical products | No | Faulty toaster causing fire |
| Negligence | Poor service or handling of product | Yes | Mechanic improperly installs a brake pad |
| Warranty | Breach of product expectations | No | A drug not fit for use as advertised |
| Predominant Purpose | Determines if goods or services dominate | N/A | Surgery (service) vs. implanted device (product) |
9. Conclusion
In Advanced Torts, the distinction between products and services is critical in determining legal liability. While strict liability typically applies to products, services are usually governed by negligence principles. Courts use case-specific analysis—such as the predominant purpose test—to determine which legal doctrine applies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments