Source: https://www.martindale.com/products-liability-law/article__1232638.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:26:52+00:00

Document:
Practitioners throughout the country are being faced with a relatively new area of the law regarding component part liability: specifically, the “duty to warn” for manufacturers that supply aftermarket or replacement component parts, versus the duty to warn for the original-equipment or finished-product manufacturers.
For example, assume that a woman wanted to upgrade the OEM rims on her vehicle. OEM (original equipment manufacturer) refers to a manufacturer that produces equipment from component parts obtained from other manufacturers. The woman purchases aftermarket rims from a distributor who also installs the rims on her vehicle. The rims are not compatible with her specific vehicle, which diminishes the vehicle’s handling capabilities. As a result, the woman gets into a rollover accident and sustains serious injuries. Will the aftermarket rim manufacturer be liable for failing to warn the woman that its rims were not compatible with the specific year, make and model of her vehicle?
As another example, suppose that a man wants to upgrade the engine on his old boat. He purchases a new motor with more power. The weight of his boat in conjunction with the extra power of the new motor causes a serious boating accident. Will the manufacturer of the boat motor be liable for failing to warn the man about how the generic motor could pose a danger for his specific boat?
These hypothetical situations boil down to one narrow issue: does a replacement-part manufacturer have a duty to warn the end user about how its part may affect the final product in which it is integrated. The answer to this question depends on whether a jurisdiction applies Restatement (Second) of Torts or Restatement (Third) of Torts. This article seeks to explain the varying implications of these two restatements by using illustrations from Florida courts that address the issue.
Restatement (Second) of Torts was adopted by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1964. For more than 30 years, it has been the backbone of strict product liability law across the nation. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A established that a manufacturer is strictly liable if its product was sold in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.” Unfortunately, § 402A did not provide any details with respect to a component-part manufacturer’s duty to warn. As a result of the ambiguity, the jurisdictions that implement § 402A have not interpreted its provisions in a uniform way and have created varying standards for strict product liability.
(b)(3) the defect in the product causes the harm.
As a general rule, component sellers should not be liable when the component itself is not defective as defined in this Chapter. If the component is not itself defective, it would be unjust and inefficient to impose liability solely on the ground that the manufacturer of the integrated product utilizes the component in a manner that renders the integrated product defective. Imposing liability would require the component seller to scrutinize another’s product which the component seller has no role in developing. This would require the component seller to develop sufficient sophistication to review the decisions of the business entity that is already charged with responsibility for the integrated product.
So generally, Section 5 of Restatement (Third) would relieve a component-part manufacturer of liability if (a) the component part was not defective, or (b) the component-part supplier played no role in designing the finished product. When the replacement part is one that can be integrated into different sizes, shapes and varieties of a finished product, the replacement-part manufacturer is not usually playing a role in designing the finished product. In those cases, Section 5 of Restatement (Third) supports the concept that a replacement-part manufacturer is not responsible for warning a customer of the effect the replacement part can have on the finished product.
Florida courts did not consider Restatement (Third) until 2005, in the case of Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So.2d 596 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 2005). The plaintiffs in Kohler brought a product liability action on behalf of their child against a manufacturer of an engine that was installed in a lawn mower, after the child’s hand was injured by a rotating plastic air-intake screen on the mower. The parents asserted claims of strict liability, failure to warn, and negligence.5 Evidence at trial established that the defendant’s engine was incorporated into the lawn mower by the lawn mower’s manufacturer. The evidence also established that the defendant was not involved in the installation or integration of its engine into the lawn mower.
However, not all Florida courts have embraced Restatement (Third). More recently, in McConnell v. Union Carbide Corp., 937 So.2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the court considered the Restatement (Third)’s definition of “defective,” where the plaintiff contended that he contracted asbestosis from working with a product that contained processed asbestos. Ultimately, the court chose to follow the definition set forth in Restatement (Second), and noted that the Restatement (Third) “has not been adopted in Florida.” Apparently, the court failed to consider the Third District Court of Appeal ruling in Kohler.
The Third DCA reiterated its approval of Restatement (Third) as it related to product liability issues in Argrofollajes S.A. v. E. I. Dupont DeNemours & Co., Inc., 2009 FLW 4828975 (Fla. 3rd DCA, December 16, 2009) (Section 2 related to use of risk-utility/risk-benefit test). The Florida Supreme Court has yet to address the application of Section 5, Restatement (Third).
While the Restatement (Third) is instructive on many issues in product liability cases, including component part liability, few states have adopted it. For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff attorneys throughout the country are lobbying to preserve the antiquated principle of Restatement (Second). From a defense standpoint, Restatement (Third) benefits manufacturers, especially those that sell aftermarket replacement parts to be integrated into final products.
1West v. Caterpillar, 336 So.2d 80, 84, 87 (Fla. 1976).
2Samuel Friedland Family Enterprises v. Amoroso, 630 So.2d 1067, 1068(Fla.1994); see also Mobley v. South Florida Beverage Corp., 500 So.2d 292(Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
3North Miami General Hospital, Inc. v. Goldberg, 520 So.2d 650, 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
4Samuel Friedland Family Enterprises, 630 So.2d at 1068.
5Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 2005).
7Id. at 598. The manufacturer of the subject vehicle, Toyota, did warn in the owner’s manual of the dangers of not using original equipment tires and wheels on the subject vehicle.

References: § 402
 § 402
 § 402
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.