Opinion ID: 1364537
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is AML Subject to Strict Products Liability?

Text: AML argues that because it is a common carrier, it should not be subject to strict products liability. Saddler argues that AML is a repackager and should be strictly liable as such. AML is correct. On the issue of strict products liability, we have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965), with some exceptions. [4] Swenson Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. Truckweld Equip. Co., 604 P.2d 1113, 1116 (Alaska 1980). According to the Restatement, the following are subject to strict products liability: sellers, manufacturers, wholesale or retail dealers and distributors. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(A), cmt. f (1965). Additionally, strict liability applies to products, not services. Swenson Trucking, 604 P.2d at 1116-17 (repairer of truck ram assembly not held strictly liable as a matter of law). Despite Saddler's arguments to the contrary, AML provided only a service to Knik. It performed the service of storing Knik's empty asphalt containers on its dock in Washington. When a shipment of asphalt materials was delivered from Chevron, the manufacturer, AML performed the service of pumping the asphalt into the containers. Finally, AML performed the service of shipping the filled containers to Alaska. At no time did AML sell, manufacture, deal or distribute the asphalt products. [5] Therefore, AML is not subject to strict products liability as a matter of law.