Opinion ID: 1099041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Strict liability in tort why have it and what does it do?

Text: The doctrine of strict liability for a manufacturer, without negligence, was first applied in Mississippi in State Stove Manufacturing Co. v. Hodges, 189 So.2d 113, 119 (Miss. 1966). State Stove has been consistently followed in Mississippi for many years. [1] In State Stove, this Court accepted strict liability and defined its purpose as follows: The purpose of [strict] liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. Id. at 120 (quoting Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 700-701, 377 P.2d 897, 900-901 (1963)). State Stove adopted the version of strict liability stated in Section 402A of the American Law Institute's Restatement of Torts (Second). It states: § 402 A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. (Emphasis added). State Stove explicitly holds that the extent of strict liability of a manufacturer for harm caused by its product is not that of an insurer. State Stove, 189 So.2d at 120. However, strict liability does relieve the plaintiff of the onerous burden of proving negligence (i.e. fault). Fault is supplied as a matter of law. Toliver, 482 So.2d at 215. Section 402A is still the law in Mississippi. How this Court defines the phrases defective condition and unreasonably dangerous used in 402A dictates whether a consumer expectations analysis or a risk-utility analysis will prevail. Problems have arisen because our past decisions have been unclear and have been misinterpreted in some instances.