Opinion ID: 1099041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Consumer Expectations Analysis

Text: The term consumer expectations comes from comment i to Section 402A. It states: [T]he rule stated in this section applies only where the defective condition of the product makes it unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer ... The article sold must be dangerous to an extent 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 a consumer expectations analysis, [o]rdinarily the phrase `defective condition' means that the article has something wrong with it, that it did not function as expected. Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews, 291 So.2d at 172 (citing State Stove, 189 So.2d at 121). Comment g of Section 402A defines defective condition as a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, which will be unreasonably dangerous to him. Thus, in a consumer expectations analysis, for a plaintiff to recover, the defect in a product which causes his injuries must not be one which the plaintiff, as an ordinary consumer, would know to be unreasonably dangerous to him. In other words, if the plaintiff, applying the knowledge of an ordinary consumer, sees a danger and can appreciate that danger, then he cannot recover for any injury resulting from that appreciated danger. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that Mississippi employs a consumer expectations standard in strict products liability cases. See Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 978 F.2d 1386, 1392 (5th Cir.1992) ([T]he Mississippi Supreme Court [has] adhered to a `consumer expectation' test.); Toney v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., 975 F.2d 162, 165 (5th Cir.1992) (Mississippi has adopted the objective `consumer expectations' test to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous and therefore defective.); Melton v. Deere & Co., 887 F.2d 1241, 1243 (5th Cir.1989) (Consumer expectation [is] still the basis of Mississippi's test); Gray v. Manitowoc Co., Inc., 771 F.2d 866, 869 (5th Cir.1985) ([t]he State Stove and Ford [v. Matthews ] courts' commitment to the consumer expectation test for product defects had not been undermined by any subsequent decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court). Sperry contends that this Fifth Circuit precedent controls this case. It argues that Batts, Toney and Melton reject the notion that Mississippi has turned away from a consumer expectations analysis.