Abstract
The realization that negligence doctrines do not provide an adequate remedy for consumers injured by defective products has led many courts to adopt theories of strict liability. Justification for the strict liability doctrine rests on the judicial belief that the law should provide maximum protection for the health and safety of all consumers, and that the manufacturer is "conditionally at fault" if he does not compensate consumers injured by his defective products. Manufacturers are not held liable for all product-related harm to consumers. To recover the plaintiff must plead and prove that the product which caused the harm was defective when it left the manufacturer's hands. The emphasis is not on the quality of the defendant's conduct, as in negligence, but on the condition of the product that caused the harm. The most important question in products liability law has become the kind and quantum of evidence necessary to infer the defect required for recovery under strict liability theory. A recent Oregon decision considered the specificity with which a plaintiff must plead and prove defect in a strict products liability case. In Vanek v. Kirby the Oregon Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, a passenger injured in an automobile which left the road and struck a power pole, stated a good cause of action against the manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The plaintiff's allegation of defect was simply that "said vehicle could not be kept on said highway during its normal use as a vehicle for transportation." The trial court had entered a judgment on the pleadings for the defendant. On appeal the Supreme Court of Oregon reversed. The issue on appeal was the sufficiency of the foregoing complaint. The appellate court framed the issue in terms of causation—"the specificity with which the plaintiff must plead and prove that his injury was caused by the defendant's product rather than by some other cause." The court stated that a plaintiff should not have to plead more than he must prove. Therefore, rather than dealing with the pleading issue directly, the court concluded that the requirements of proof for recovery under strict liability would determine the sufficiency of the pleadings.
First Page
189
Recommended Citation
Robert F. Hanson,
Proof of Defect in a Strict Products Liability Case,
22
Me. L. Rev.
189
(1970).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol22/iss1/8