Top Law Schools

I've been doing a bunch of mbe questions and I can't figure out the difference of a few producst questions:

Some times the retailer is held liable for letting a product with a manufacturing defect leave his control even after inspection and sometimes the inspection negates liability? WHY?

Spanks in advance.

bigstumpdriver wrote:I've been doing a bunch of mbe questions and I can't figure out the difference of a few producst questions:

Some times the retailer is held liable for letting a product with a manufacturing defect leave his control even after inspection and sometimes the inspection negates liability? WHY?

Spanks in advance.

i think it depends on the inspection. if the defect in the problem is one that would nto be found even with an inspection, then the manufacturer is strictly liable. if the inspection reveals a defect, and the retailer does not remedy the problem, then the retailer is also liable ( and if its a defect regarding the design, manufacturing or warning label, then the manufactuere is also liable I believe). however if the retailer conducts his own inspection, and negligently remedies the problem using methods or products incompatible with the product that significantly alter the original characteristics ( find a metal shaft in a saw blade, and replace it with a cheapo plastic one and sell it to a woodsmith who then without any negligence of their own is injured when the plastic shaft fails) then the retailer and not the manufacturer is liable

Northwood's 2nd sentence is most telling, but to hopefully clarify, you have to first figure out under which theory of products liability you're making the claim: 1) strict products liability (defect, or lack of warning, etc...) OR 2) negligence. The call of the question should actually tell you under what theory they're suing for: negligence or strict liability


The reason why strict liability is preferable for the plaintiff is that they can choose anyone from the chain of commerce (wholesaler, manufacturer, retailer, etc...) to make the claim since they all have indemnification clauses set up so it's basically a joint and several liability thing anyway. The reason why this is important is that you DON'T have to prove causation to an individual plaintiff. (THIS IS the MBE question you're talking about where inspection is likely a wrong answer, since establishing causation is not the point in a strict liability claim).

If they're making a claim via negligence and they're trying to sue the retailer who should have inspected AND like Northwood said, if that was the actual and proximate cause of the damage. I mean.. it's just standard Negligence elements: Duty, breach, causation, damages.


That should clear it up I think.

Thanks so much you two!

bigstumpdriver wrote:Thanks so much you two!

glad to help you, and it was good review for me too