Opinion ID: 1298680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: evidence of defectiveness

Text: A product is designed for specific uses, and if it is properly made but unsuitable for its intended use, its design is faulty. In Smith v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 70 Or. App. 30, 687 P.2d 1128, 1129 (1984), the court observed: If a product is unsuitable for its intended use, and as a result is unreasonably dangerous, then the correct inquiry is whether there is a manufacturing or design defect, not whether the manufacturer should have warned of the defect. This statement by the Oregon court is consistent with the general standard defining a product to be defective when it fails to perform reasonably and safely the function for which it was intended. Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration Corp., 665 P.2d 452, 462 (Wyo. 1983). It is not necessary to prove a specific defect, and while proof of the failure or malfunction of an article standing alone is insufficient to prove that a product was defective, it is a strong circumstance to consider along with the remaining facts. Valentine, 665 P.2d at 462. In Valentine, 665 P.2d at 462, we quoted with approval the rule enunciated in Tweedy v. Wright Ford Sales, Inc., 64 Ill.2d 570, 2 Ill.Dec. 282, 357 N.E.2d 449, 452 (1976): A prima facie case that a product was defective and that the defect existed when it left the manufacturer's control is made by proof that in the absence of abnormal use or reasonable secondary causes the product failed `to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of [its] nature and intended function.' See also Sims, 751 P.2d 357. To similar effect is the language found at 1 American Law of Products Liability 3d § 3:5 at 13 (1987): For a product to be found defective in a products liability action, it is not always necessary that there be proof of a specific, particular underlying defect. If the plaintiff has no evidence of a specific defect in the design or manufacture of the product, the plaintiff may offer evidence of its malfunction as circumstantial proof of the product's defect;   . [Footnotes omitted.] In Stewart v. BF Goodrich Co., 153 Ill. App.3d 1078, 107 Ill.Dec. 40, 506 N.E.2d 783, 785, appeal denied 116 Ill.2d 576, 113 Ill.Dec. 318, 515 N.E.2d 127 (1987), the court said that [f]or circumstantial evidence to make out a prima facie case, it must tend to negate other reasonable causes, or there must be an expert opinion that the product was defective. (Emphasis in original.) It has also been held that [t]estimony of the user or operator of the product as to the circumstances of the event is sufficient to establish malfunction. Farmer v. International Harvester Co., 97 Idaho 742, 553 P.2d 1306, 1312 (1976). See Clarke v. Brockway Motor Trucks, 372 F. Supp. 1342 (E.D.Pa. 1974) and Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co. v. Wean Engineering Co., 283 F. Supp. 978 (W.D.Pa. 1967), aff'd 407 F.2d 87 (3rd Cir.1969). In Farmer, 553 P.2d at 1312, the Idaho Supreme Court said: A distinction need not be drawn between a defect and a malfunction. Proof of malfunction is circumstantial evidence of a defect in a product since a product will not ordinarily malfunction within the reasonable contemplation of a consumer in the absence of a defect.