Opinion ID: 1298680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: defectiveness as a standard where intended use is specific

Text: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897, 899 (1963) presented a shopsmith woodworking machine that, without manufacturing defect, was demonstrably dangerous when used for its intended purpose as a matter of design: Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that his injuries were caused by defective design and construction of the Shopsmith. His expert witnesses testified that inadequate set screws were used to hold parts of the machine together so that normal vibration caused the tailstock of the lathe to move away from the piece of wood being turned permitting it to fly out of the lathe. Whether carriage set screws vibrated loose or the tires in this case bounced excessively makes little difference in liability theory when the user is injured by the occurrence. An access step for the use of the driver in climbing up on a Caterpillar tractor likewise presents an opportunity for assessed liability from negligent design when it collected mud upon which the user slips and is injured. Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 571 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. 1978). See affirmed judgment on remand in Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Gonzales, 599 S.W.2d 633 (Tex.Civ.App. 1980). A similar result was obtained in Phillips v. Kimwood Mach. Co., 269 Or. 485, 525 P.2d 1033 (1974), although the case turned on the duty to warn. The operator was injured by a fiberboard sander when the machine regurgitated a sheet back out into the operator where the operator was manually feeding since the automatic feeder attachment had not been purchased. That court considered a seller-oriented or use-oriented standard  where strict liability either imposes what amounts to a constructive knowledge of the condition of the product, Id. 525 P.2d at 1036, or the user-oriented standard of danger to the user beyond contemplation. In the case of a product which is claimed to be dangerously defective because of misdesign, the process is not so easy as in the case of mismanufacture. All the products made to that design are the same. The question of whether the design is unreasonably dangerous can be determined only by taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances and knowledge at the time the article was sold, and determining therefrom whether a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have so designed and sold the article in question had he known of the risk involved which injured plaintiff. Id. at 1037. The opinion further noted, although the involvement of defectiveness may be the same, that the issue has been raised in some courts concerning whether in this context there is a distinction between strict liability and negligence. The evidence which proves the one will almost always, if not always, prove the other. It is our opinion that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that a reasonably prudent manufacturer, knowing that the machine would be fed manually and having the constructive knowledge of its propensity to regurgitate thin sheets when it was set for thick ones, which the courts via strict liability have imposed upon it, would have warned plaintiff's employer either to feed it automatically or to use some safety device, and that, in the absence of such a warning, the machine was dangerously defective. Id. at 1038-39. See, however, an analysis of the difference in general development in Keefe and Henke, Presumed Knowledge of Danger: Legal Fiction Gone Awry?, 19 Seton Hall L.Rev. 174 (1989). Likewise in this case, appellant could have been instructed to slow down his operational speed  undoubtedly unacceptable to the mine owner where quantity of material moved is everything. See also Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884-85 (Alaska 1979), where the court adopted a test from Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 20 Cal.3d 413, 143 Cal. Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, 454, 457 (1978) and stated: The Barker test represents a composite of the most workable features of each of the other tests. The first prong of the Barker test  that a product is defectively designed if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner  incorporates notions of the implied warranty of fitness for reasonable use, a primary concept in the evolution of strict products liability,   . The second prong of the Barker definition encompasses those situations, such as the lack of a safety device which is presented here, where the product satisfies ordinary consumer expectations as to its general use but is still defective in that its design exposes the user or bystander to excessive preventable danger. [Footnotes omitted.] As an instruction, that court stated: Following the guidelines set by the Barker court, we hold that the trial court may instruct the jury that a product is defectively designed if: (1) the plaintiff proves that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) the plaintiff proves that the product's design proximately caused injury and the defendant fails to prove, in light of the relevant factors, that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. Id. at 886 (quoting Barker, 573 P.2d at 452). In case definition, this appeal could be confined to the presented facts of special order merchandise which fails in the performance in anticipated usage. Generally, however, the unfortunate divisiveness of the erroneous theory presented here extrudes into or overlaps the entire issue of design defect product liability. It remains in analysis of law and fact that every product will have some desired and appropriate use (doorstop, perhaps) and other uses for which it would not be provident (killing houseflies with dynamite). It is in the confluence of design defect special order merchandise as relating to strict liability, negligence and warranty that this decision crosses an almost unlimited number of products liability cases and review authorities; none of which in my analysis would justify the majority's decision. [4] My only concurrence with the majority is that a defect is required to present issues of strict liability, negligence or general warranty as well as fitness for the purpose intended. We differ in logic and analysis as to the definition of defect and particularly here with special order merchandise that fails to perform within anticipated usage. Under any theory of products liability, a plaintiff has the burden of proving (1) injury; (2) the product causing injury was defective; (3) the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant's control; and (4) the defective condition of the product proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. Stewart, 107 Ill.Dec. 40, 506 N.E.2d 783; Moslander v. Dayton Tire and Rubber Co., 628 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. App. 1981); Jolley v. General Motors Corp., 55 N.C. App. 383, 285 S.E.2d 301 (1982). See summarized analysis in 1 American Law of Products Liability 3d, supra, § 1:5. [5] A product may be defective in three ways: (1) manufacturing flaw; (2) defective design; or (3) absence or inadequacy of warnings regarding the use of the product. Valk Mfg. Co. v. Rangaswamy, 74 Md. App. 304, 537 A.2d 622, 626, cert. granted 313 Md. 9, 542 A.2d 845 (1988); 1 American Law of Products Liability 3d, supra, § 3:7; W. Prosser and W. Keeton, The Law of Torts § 99 (5th ed. 1984). This court has previously quoted with approval the general definition of a defect, which states that [a] product is defective when it fails to perform reasonably and safely the function for which it was intended. Valentine, 665 P.2d at 462 (quoting Drier v. Perfection, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 496, 504 (S.D. 1977)). The various definitions of defect revealed by present research, however, confirm the following observation that [t]he term `defect' has been defined on a case-by-case basis and has not been found to be susceptible of any general definition or of a single definition applicable in all contexts. 2 American Law of Products Liability 3d, supra, § 17:5 at 13-14 (footnote omitted). Moreover, the elements of proof of a defect vary depending on which theory of recovery is pursued. Id. at § 3:7. See Keeton, Product Liability and the Meaning of Defect, 5 St. Mary's L.J. 30 (1973). See also Keefe and Henke, supra, 19 Seton Hall L.Rev. 174. The defining concept throughout this analysis is that intended use is inextricably bound in defect in all cases with the possible exception of a malmanufactured product. It is axiomatically necessary to address intended use in relation to defect. In Buckley, would the court's conclusion have been the same if the tractor was designed for fuel oil and high test gasoline was furnished with the result that upon commencement of use, the equipment exploded and incinerated the buyer who did not know that the dealer's mistake had occurred? Unfitness for the purpose intended, which is a function of design defect, has been a singular constituent of modern products liability litigation. [6] Although not directly delineated within its true character to be a subset of design defect, special order merchandise which fails to function as intended fits immediately within the general principles and, specifically, the constituent policy of Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 402A. This majority, in creating an illogical distinction unfounded in precedent and legal history that what is wrong is not defective, chisels out into the law a singular and significant mistake in basic analysis. In the general history of recent law, modern products liability matured from MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) in Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960), as followed by Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152, 386 A.2d 816 (1978), overruled on other grounds sub nom. Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Mach. Co., 81 N.J. 150, 406 A.2d 140 (1979); Greenman, 377 P.2d 897 and Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument Corp., 12 N.Y.2d 432, 240 N.Y.S.2d 592, 191 N.E.2d 81 (1963). See products liability symposium including articles by Professors John W. Wade, Page Keeton, Dix W. Noel and Robert E. Keeton, with introduction by Roy R. Ray to Products Liability  A Symposium, 19 S.W.L.J. 1 (1965). Greenman involved a misdesigned power tool and Cepeda involved an industrial machine which was defectively designed from a safety standpoint. Cepeda, 386 A.2d at 820. The case development in Pennsylvania provides a similar design defect development in fitness for the purpose intended. Berkebile, 337 A.2d 893 addressed a defectively designed helicopter. The seller must provide with the product every element necessary to make it safe for use. Id. at 902. It was then recognized in Azzarello, 391 A.2d at 1026, to apply to a bad design, we must look to whether the product is safe for its intended use. See also Dambacher, 485 A.2d 408, which completes the concept development by application to radial tires which, as an item of commerce, were not defective but misapplied if mixed with non-radial tires on the vehicle. It was the intended use, onward in danger, where the accident was invited by the mixed fitment. Dambacher, 485 A.2d at 414. The court specified that as a matter of law and would not rule that the radial tires were not defective, even if not defective when used with a full complement of other radial tires. It was the mixture of radial tires with non-radial tires which created the danger and consequent defect in product application. Intended use was the cornerstone of the liability thesis. See likewise Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp., 307 S.E.2d 603 (W. Va. 1983). In direct application, this majority now disindigenously ignores as a legal principle the criteria that should have been applied: The same principles should apply whether the manufacturing defect is due to error or mischance or design. Though the nature of the proof to demonstrate that the product was defective may differ, the ultimate jury test is the same. Suitability and safety are implicated whether the defect in the product is due to an imperfection in the material or improper design.       Delivery of an improperly designed machine constitutes delivery of a defective product. At that point, whether the cause of the defect in the product was due to design or otherwise is not material. See Pike v. Frank H. Hough Co., 2 Cal.3d 465, 475, 85 Cal. Rptr. 629, 636, 467 P.2d 229, 236 (1970). Once the defect is established and the other elements shown, a case for strict liability has been made out. Suter v. San Angelo Foundray & Mach. Co., 81 N.J. 150, 406 A.2d 140, 152-53 (1979). The trial judge in Suter, 406 A.2d at 149 said that to hold defendant liable, four elements had to be proved: (1) that the product had not been reasonably fit for the ordinary use for which it was intended; (2) that the defect arose out of defendant's design of the machine; (3) that the defect proximately caused plaintiff's injury or damage; and (4) that plaintiff was a reasonably foreseeable consumer or user of the product. See likewise Birchfield v. International Harvester Co., 726 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir.1984); Casrell v. Altec Industries, Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976), non-insulated cherry picker; Seattle-First National Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wash.2d 145, 542 P.2d 774 (1975); Ulmer v. Ford Motor Company, 75 Wash.2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969); and Wade, supra, 44 Miss.L.J. 828. The exhaustive exposition of strict liability in California cases also denies efficacy to what this majority does to Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 402A, strict liability and general theories of product responsibility of both the manufacturer and the seller. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 8 Cal.3d 121, 104 Cal. Rptr. 433, 501 P.2d 1153 (1972) developed from the situation which has factual similarity as a known intended use. An assembled bread truck as not unsafe in itself became faulty and dangerous by a defective hasp that permitted a bread tray to slide forward into the cab. When this hasp failed like the bouncing Michelin tires, the driver was injured from equipment which lacked fitness for the purpose intended, even though external forces in a street collision intervened. Both cases present defective equipment as unsuitable for the purpose intended. See also Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. and Tel. Co., 34 Cal.3d 49, 192 Cal. Rptr. 857, 665 P.2d 947 (1983), where a misdesigned and mislocated telephone booth, which was only unsafe at a car crash exposed location, resulted in injury to the plaintiff; and Barker, 573 P.2d 443, high-lift loader design defect. In similar regard, a fiberglass construction of a car roof affords question of design defect in Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 162 Mont. 506, 513 P.2d 268 (1973). The sheet metal used for duct work construction of a school created a similar fitness for intended purpose test in Walters v. Kellam and Foley, 172 Ind. App. 207, 360 N.E.2d 199 (1977). In that case, the sheet metal was not in itself unsafe or unsafe after the completion of installation, it was allegedly unsafe within the construction process for the activities of installers. In Bell Helicopter Co. v. Bradshaw, 594 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Civ.App. 1979), there was at issue a crashed helicopter when a prior generation unsafe rotor blade broke in flight. As a strict liability and negligence consideration, duty to update and maintain for safe performance was at issue and liability resulted. See likewise Montgomery Elevator Co. v. McCullough By McCullough, 676 S.W.2d 776 (Ky. 1984) and Gonzales, 571 S.W.2d 867. Particularization of the individual use or lack of warning of product limitation provide similar authority within the forests of defective tire cases. In Barth v. B.F. Goodrich Tire Co., 265 Cal. App.2d 228, 71 Cal. Rptr. 306 (1968), unwarned overload problems for tires when used on a station wagon provided a basis for liability. The buyer bought tires to do the job for the identified vehicles. Likewise, speed capacity was at issue in Cavallaro v. Michelin Tire Corp., 96 Cal. App.3d 95, 157 Cal. Rptr. 602 (1979), although in result, the favorable verdict was reversed for retrial because of inconsistency in its turns. In Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals review, blowout proof tires that blew out were defective, B.F. Goodrich Company v. Hammond, 269 F.2d 501 (10th Cir.1959). A Mercury Cougar operating at a speed above tire capacity but within car capacity, afforded a basis for liability up to tire blowout in LeBouef v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 623 F.2d 985 (5th Cir.1980). The tires were safe enough, but not on a Mercury Cougar with a driver who tested the capacity of his car. A case which is interestingly similar in the wrong item versus defect review is Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1986). Proper parts were provided but, unfortunately, the activator for the airplane trim tabs for the left and right sides were installed on the wrong side with the disastrous result that follows. The appellate court adduced that: The core concern in strict tort liability law is safety. See Comments a through i to Section 402A. Therefore, the primary inquiry in a design defect case is whether the product  because of the way it is designed  creates an unreasonable risk of danger to the consumer or user when put to normal use. See generally, Owen and Montgomery, Reflections On the Theory and Administration of Strict Tort Liability For Defective Products, 27 S.C.L.Rev. 804, 812-13 (1976). To establish liability in a design defect case, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the product, as designed, is unreasonably dangerous and therefore defective, and that the demonstrated defect caused his injuries. Though obviously abbreviated, the foregoing explanation describes the heart and soul of a strict tort liability design defect case  unreasonable danger and causation.       Throughout the course of the entire trial, plaintiffs consistently focused on the existence of an industry design criteria standard  which was first brought to the jury's attention by mechanics Lane and Adams. The two terms used most often during the trial to describe this industry standard were work or no go and murphy proof. Stated most simply, this industry standard calls for manufacturers like Beech to design critical flight parts in a way which makes it physically impossible to install them or assemble them in any way but the right way. Id. at 375-79. It is apparent that the synthesis of the Missouri Court would not comfortably fit within the wrong product delivery concept of Buckley. Likewise, the intervening cause contention might also be estranged. Wrong is defective and if damage results, causative. Airplanes provided with the wrong fuel is illustrative. For a case involving pickup tires for a camper unit, see Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Company, 288 Minn. 83, 179 N.W.2d 64, 69 (1970), which stated: A defect has been defined as any condition not contemplated by the user which makes the product unreasonably dangerous to him. A product is not in a defective condition when it is safe for normal handling and consumption. Magnuson v. Rupp Manufacturing, Inc., 285 Minn. 32, 171 N.W.2d 201; Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co. (W.D.Pa.) 283 F. Supp. 978; Prosser, The Fall of the Citadel, 50 Minn.L.Rev. 791, 826; Restatement, Torts (2d) § 402 A, comments g, h, and i. This definition of defect, appearing in cases involving strict liability in tort, is closely related to the concept of defect as it appears in cases dealing with breach of implied warranty. As stated in 2 Frumer and Friedman, Products Liability, § 16A[4][e]: A breach of warranty may be proved if it is shown, by expert testimony or reasonable inferences from the circumstances, that a product is defective or injurious or failed in normal use and caused the injury complained of. Is a product which causes damage under circumstances constituting a breach of warranty `defective' for purposes of the rule of strict liability in tort? Would the same proof suffice? While not clear-cut, affirmative answers seem to be implicit in the cases.