Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

JACK DOE AND JILL DOE, minors represented by their mother BAMBI DOE
Complainants,

I.S. No. 10-0790

IMPERIAL BUCKET CORPORATION,

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT

The UNDERSIGNED, JACK DOE and JILL DOE, are Filipino minors who are

represented by their mother BAMBI DOE, allege that IMPERIAL BUCKET

CORPORATION is guilty of gross product liability which led to the following events, to

wit:

That on or about May 17, 2014, at about 9:45 a.m. in the Madalusdos, Bohol

Philippines, the said complainants suffered grievous and permanent injuries when a

steel bucket manufactured by the defendant proved to be of unsafe design and

manufacture, and without proper safety guards, so as to allow it to be operated in an

unsafe manner by these minors. That by means of having manufactured a bucket of

unsafe design, the accused committed gross product liability which led to the injuries

sustained by herein complainants, upon the undersigned directly by overt acts to wit:
 Herein complainants Jack and Jill went up a steep incline called a hill to fetch a

pail of water. They were skipping as they ascended. At the top, they filled the pail with

water, unaware that the pail may be filled to an unsafe level. As they carried the pail,

Jack and Jill supported the weight of the pail together; both held the handle of the

bucket and walked slowly together. As such, they began to descend from the top

carefully for they were already carrying the filled bucket. However, as they descended,

the water began to slosh in the pail. Trying to keep the water balanced, they proceeded

slower but the sloshing made balancing the water extremely difficult. Even with such

care, Jack lost his balance and fell, breaking his crown, ribs and right arm, and injuring

himself. Jill, being smaller and lighter, could not support the pail on her own and at the

instant her brother lost his balance, she subsequently lost hers. She fell, acquiring

bruises and contusions to her legs, ankles and wrists.

The pail manufactured by the defendant was made of steel and weighed 1.6 lbs.

when empty. It was designed to be carried by a round metal handle or a “bail”.

Depending on what is used to fill the pail, a difference of 60 pounds may be gotten if the

pail is filled with various matter. Unless one received proper instruction in the use of the

pail, it could easily be overloaded, causing it to become unstable.

The pail had no directions for safe use, no warning of any kind and no safety

devices that protected individuals from incurring injury. The pail could be operated by

minors without being aware of the inherent dangers brought by its defective design.

Thus they are subject to incur injury when using the bucket.

The Imperial Bucket Corporation, being aware for an indeterminate time that the

bucket they manufactured and offered had serious design flaws and under certain
conditions, could cause severe injury, still continued to manufacture and market such a

product to the public. They failed to take the necessary steps to inform the public of the

potential for injury inherent in the use of their product, which is a concrete manifestation

of their blatant disregard for public welfare and safety.

As such is the circumstances, herein complainants allege that the liability for this

incident justly belongs to herein defendant for having knowledge for an indeterminate

time of the defective design, they could have changed it and added some warnings or

instructions for its safe and proper use. These enumerated procedure is of general

application to manufacturers all over the world for it is imperative to adhere to this

protocol. The design and warning are in fact sources of liability of the manufacturer and

thus, they generally ensure these portions of the product. As explained by Maggiano

Digirolamo Lizzi law firm, there are 3 types of unsafe products considered by law. These

are design defects, manufacturing defects and marketing defects. As defined by

Maggiano Digirolamo Lizzi (2014), design defects are:

“Flaws in the intentional design of a product. In order to prove the product

was designed defectively, the plaintiff must be able to show that the product is

inherently flawed; therefore, even if the consumer used the product as instructed,

it would still be dangerous. Claiming a design defect sometimes requires that the

plaintiff show negligence in the defective design, but in other cases, a

manufacturer can be held liable if the plaintiff can show there was a safe, cost-

effective alternative.”
 Manufacturing defects, as defined by them, occur:

“Occur when a product does not meet the designer’s or manufacturer’s

specifications for the product. In these cases, a manufacturer failed to properly

assemble the product according to the design, resulting in an unsafe final

product. These types of unsafe product claims are often the easiest to prove, as

the manufacturer’s internal design standards can show that the product was

defective.”

Lastly. Marketing defects are:

“Otherwise known as failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions,

occur when a product is improperly labeled. If the product does not come with

sufficient instructions or it fails to warn consumers of hidden hazards, the

company could be found liable for injuries. In addition, intentional

misrepresentation of a product can qualify for product liability in certain cases.”

Under the principle of strict liability, the defendant is responsible for the incurred injury.

As for the law of the land, Republic Act no. 7394, otherwise known as the

Consumer Act of the Philippines provides; "(a)ny Filipino or foreign manufacturer,

producer and any importer shall be liable for redress, independently of fault, for

damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design, manufacture,

construction, assembly and erection formulas and handling and making up, presentation

or packing of their products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on

the use and hazards thereof" (Art. 97 of the said R.A.). By applying this law, we can
conclude that a liability is incurred by herein defendant when they continued to

manufacture such a product without providing any warning or proper instructional use

as to the product. This in itself is considered a design defect for these are necessary

steps in order to secure the safety of the consumer.

In the case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals, the court stated that:

“Manufacturers owe a duty to consumers of their products to see that there are no

defects in manufacture which are likely to give rise to injury in the ordinary course

of use. Their duty does not, however, end if the product, although suitable for the

purpose for which it is manufactured and marketed, is at the same time

dangerous to use; and if they are aware of its dangerous character they cannot,

without more, pass the risk of injury to the consumer.”

This is furthered by Hollis v. Dow Corning Corporation. The court provided that, “A

manufacturer of a product has a duty in tort to warn consumers of dangers it knows

or ought to know are inherent in the product's use.  This duty is a continuing one,

requiring manufacturers to warn not only of dangers known at the time of sale, but

also of dangers discovered after the product has been sold and delivered.  All

warnings must be reasonably communicated, and must clearly describe any specific

dangers that arise from the ordinary use of the product.  The duty to warn serves to

correct the knowledge imbalance between manufacturers and consumers by

alerting consumers to any dangers and allowing them to make informed decisions
 concerning the safe use of the product.  The nature and scope of this duty varies

with the level of danger entailed by the ordinary use of the product.”

This was supported and affirmed by the case of Rivtow Marine Corp. v Washington

Iron works herein it provided that the duty to warn does not cease at the time of the

perfection of the sale. It is continuing one and should the manufacturer find further

design defects that lead to harm, then they should exercise diligence in trying to

communicate the warning to the consumer.

The undersigned executed this affidavit to attest the truthfulness of the foregoing

facts and to support the filing of complaint against IMPERIAL BUCKET

CORPORATION for violation of CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. 7394)

, this 20th day of May, 2014.

BAMBI DOE
Offended Party

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 day of May at Office of the

Prosecutor, City of Bohol. I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the

herein offended party and I am satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood

their given affidavit.

Martial Lee
Judge