Scribd
Upload
96 views1 page

DOS SLTort Chart

This document outlines the key elements for product liability claims under the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the proposed Restatement (Third). To establish liability, a plaintiff must show: 1) The product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control and reached the consumer without substantial change. 2) The defect caused injury to the plaintiff. 3) The injury occurred while using the product in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

Uploaded by

superxl2009
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views1 page

DOS SLTort Chart

This document outlines the key elements for product liability claims under the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the proposed Restatement (Third). To establish liability, a plaintiff must show: 1) The product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control and reached the consumer without substantial change. 2) The defect caused injury to the plaintiff. 3) The injury occurred while using the product in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

Uploaded by

superxl2009
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Restatement 2

nd
402A Tentative Draft of
Restatement 3
rd
New York, (PJI and oss!
Prod"#t
$sa%e &
'ondition
Reaches consumer without
substantial change from the
condition it was sold.
Must be defective at the time
of sale
Used for intended or
reasonably foreseeable use.
(PJI 2:!"
(tandard Unreasonably #angerous $ot reasonably safe. $ot reasonably safe. (PJI
2:!"
)an"fa#t"rin%
Defe#t
#oes not conform in some
significant as%ect to the
intended design. (Ri& v.
'eneral Motors (or%.) %.
*22"
#e%arts from intended
design.
+ reasonable %erson) who
,new of the %otential for
causing in-ury) should not
mar,et the %roduct. (PJI
2:!"
Desi%n Defe#t Reasonable %erson would not
have %ut in the stream of
commerce if they had
,nowledge of its harmful
character. (Philli%s v.
.imwood Machine (o.) %.
*2/" (0ame as $1"(22".
3he foreseeable ris, could
have been reduced by a
reasonable alternative
design.
+ reasonable %erson who
,new of the %otential for
causing in-ury and the
alternative design) should
not mar,et the %roduct. (PJI
2:!"
*arnin%s &
Instr"#tion
Defe#t
did not ade4uately warn of
a %articular ris, that was
,nown or ,nowable at the
time of the sale. (+nderson v.
5wens6(orning 7iberglas
(or%. %. */*) 8asbestosis) ya
die.9"
7oreseeable ris, could have
been reduced by reasonable
warnings.
(22" + reasonable %erson
who ,new of the %otential
for causing in-ury should not
mar,et the %roduct.
'om+arative
fa",t
If the in-ury results from
abnormal handling) the seller
is not liable. (7ord Motor (o.
v. Matthews) %. *:"
(22". Probably the same as
Restatement 2
nd
; !<2+.
. =as the %roduct being
misused.
2. If the had used
reasonable care) would
he have discovered the
defect and its ris,2
>. If the could have
otherwise avoided the
in-ury by use of
reasonable care.
(PJI 2:!"
Pro-imate
'a"se
Pro&imately caused the in-ury
of the . (Ri& v. 'eneral
Motors (or%.) %. *22"
8Foreseeable ris, could
have been reduced.9
0ubstantial factor in bringing
about the in-ury. (PJI 2:!"

You might also like