Opinion ID: 1364537
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duty Owed by Bulk Suppliers

Text: Saddler argues that AML owed him the duty owed by bulk suppliers, either under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, Chattel Known to be Dangerous for Intended Use, [6] or case law. [7] Saddler argues this duty should exist for policy reasons even if we determine that AML is not a bulk supplier. Saddler's arguments are unpersuasive. As he notes in his brief, supplier already is defined quite broadly. It includes lessors, bailors, repairers, donors and lenders. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 cmt. c (1965). AML is none of these; it is a common carrier hired to perform a service. Common carriers should not be subjected to strict products liability; nor should they be included within the definition of bulk suppliers. We therefore conclude that AML does not owe Saddler the duty owed by bulk suppliers.