Opinion ID: 1154282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Products Liability Based On Strict Liability in Tort

Text: As noted by the majority opinion, this Court in Shields v. Morton Chemical Co., 95 Idaho 674, 518 P.2d 857 (1974), accepted the doctrine of strict liability in tort in products liability actions. Id. at 676, 518 P.2d at 859. The rule of strict liability we adopted was that set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965). Under that rule a cause of action exists against a seller of a product if a plaintiff establishes that he suffered injury resulting from his proper use of the product which, though properly used, was in a defective condition such as rendered it unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. The difficulty in applying the rule of strict liability set forth in § 402A usually surfaces in regard to the meaning to be given the phrase in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. As the majority opinion notes, comment g to § 402A defines defective condition as a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, which will be unreasonably dangerous to him. Comment i defines unreasonably dangerous as a danger beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. In Rojas v. Lindsay Mfg. Co., 108 Idaho 590, 701 P.2d 210 (1985), we approved the following definition of the phrase: A product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous ... if it is more dangerous than would be expected by an ordinary person who may reasonably be expected to use it.    i.e., for whose use it must be safely designed. Id. at 591, 592, 701 P.2d at 211. The definition of in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer also takes on somewhat different meanings depending on the context of the products liability cause of action, i.e., whether the cause of action is premised on an alleged defect in the product's design, or in the product's manufacture (the design was not followed in the production phase), or in the product's warning concerning its known dangers. See W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 99 (5th ed. 1984) (hereinafter Prosser ). We need not fully discuss these different bases for strict liability and their concomitant definitions of defective condition since only the first is presented by this case. The heart of Toners' products liability claim is that a safer, more feasible alternative existed to Tri-Immunol. This claim relates solely to design defect. [3] As explained by the majority, comment k only applies, if at all, to design defect cases. Ante at 335, 732 P.2d at 304. In a design defect products liability case, the effect of comment k is to modify the definition of when a product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous by stating that there are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use   . Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper instructions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.  Restatement § 402A (comment k). Thus, under comment k, if a product is unavoidably unsafe, it is neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous. Contrary to the majority opinion, comment k does not immunize certain products from strict liability claims, ante at 339, 732 P.2d at 308, but merely defines which products are defective and unreasonably dangerous, and which are not. Thus, comment k clearly requires a utility-risk analysis, as the majority opinion concedes. The majority opinion acknowledges that comment k applies to actions for product liability based on strict liability in tort, although incorrectly describing the effect of comment k as resulting in an immunity, rather than merely acknowledging that unavoidably unsafe products are neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous.