Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
liability case is the defectiveness of the product, not the conduct of the manufacturer
in somehow allowing the defect to arise. As a result, proof of negligence is not required
to recover damages; it is presumed based on the defect' s existence.
Defi ning Products and Defects
There are three kinds of product defects that give rise to strict liability: manufacturing
defects, design defects, and marketing claims. Food injury claims primarily involve
manufacturing defects, the most straightforward and uncontroversial of product
claims. As one commentator has aptly pointed out, “when talking about a manufactur-
ing defect, the need for a defi nition is not obvious. For decades, both courts and
commentators considered the meaning of the 'manufacturing defect' concept so self-
evident as to be self-defi ning. ”
8
The inquiry into whether a product is defective closely coincides with what most
people would assume using common sense. A product is defective for not being how
it was supposed to be. Put in more strictly legal terms, the product is not reasonably
safe in construction because, as one state legislature has defi ned it, “the product devi-
ated in some material way from the design specifi cations or performance standards of
the manufacturer, or deviated in some material way from otherwise identical units of
the same product line.”
9
Proving the Existence of a Defect in Food
Just as it is commonly assumed that proof of negligence is required to establish liabil-
ity for a product-related injury, it is just as commonly assumed that proving the
existence of a defect is diffi cult in food cases. This assumption might seem reasonable,
at fi rst glance, since food products are typically destroyed (i.e., eaten or discarded)
and thus direct evidence of the defect rarely exists. Fortunately for the injured person,
direct evidence is not required to prove the existence of a product defect, or precisely
how or why the product failed.
In manufacturing defect cases, the fact of product malfunction, and resulting injury,
is by itself enough to give rise to a presumption of negligence and thus liability in
most states. This is sometimes referred to as the
malfunction doctrine
.
10
Its fundamen-
tal premise is the high correlation between the existence of a defect and a failure of
some kind in the manufacturing process.
11
This makes the issue of negligence not
worth the cost and uncertainties of trying to prove it. Thus, with a manufacturing
defect, it is not a useful exercise to ask whether the defect could have been prevented;
the existence of the defect is by itself suffi cient to impose liability.
For cases involving unsafe food, it is nearly always a manufacturing defect at issue,
especially when pathogens such as
E. coli
O157:H7,
Salmonella
, or hepatitis A are
involved. And while it is true that a manufacturer is not liable for a product-related
injury unless the product is both defective
and
unsafe, in food cases this is a distinc-
tion without a difference. Food that is unsafe, because it is unfi t to eat, is by defi nition
defective. For that reason, it is rare to have a defendant in a food contamination case
dispute liability unless there is a serious question of causation, or some other product-
related problem of proof.
12
Moreover, since only cases with problems of proof, or
uncertain damages, tend to go to trial, this would explain the low win-percentage for
plaintiffs who go to trial, and the relatively small damage awards for those cases the
