Unit 6 Exercise
Herrod v. Metal Power Products
Facts
This case dealt with Plaintiffs who sued a semi-trailer manufacturer for a product defect. On January 30, 2005, in Davis County, Utah, a rear wheel came off a semi-trailer and hit another vehicle causing injury and the death of one passenger. Plaintiffs sued for personal injury and wrongful death based on negligence, strict liability, and failure to warn. Plaintiffs sued multiple Defendants, but their claims against Defendant, Timpte, Inc., were based on strict liability. The trailer at issue was manufactured by Timpte and was built according to specifications provided by Northwest Transport Service, Inc. The specifications included use of the Pro-Torq wheel retention system. The court …show more content…
Elements The court followed Utah law, which adhered to general tort law, recognizing the elements of a strict liability “that as between an injured buyer of a product, and the seller of the product, the seller must bear the liability.” The Restatement (Third) of Torts states that “One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect.” As to the failure to warn claim, the court relied on the Restatement (Third) of Torts that provides: “A reasonable person in the seller's position would provide a warning after the time of sale if: (1) the seller knows or reasonably should know that the product poses a substantial risk of harm to persons or property; and (2) those to whom a warning might be provided can be identified and can reasonably be assumed to be unaware of the risk of harm; and (3) a warning can be effectively communicated to and acted on by those to whom a warning might be provided; and (4) the risk of harm is sufficiently great to justify the burden of providing a …show more content…
The fault of the seller or distributor is irrelevant in strict liability claims. The Restatement (Third) of Torts, followed by Utah courts, provides a possibility of immunity to nonmanufacturing sellers, essentially implying that liability is not absolute. “The contract specifications defense protects manufacturers from being held liable for injuries caused by design defects in products they manufacture in accordance with directions and specifications supplied by the purchaser of the products, unless the danger associated with following the specifications is obvious.” The court relied on a Seventh Circuit decision stating that a contractor is not required to “sit in judgment” of the plans or specifications provided. Additionally, when a contractor follows the specifications provided by another party, it acts as a mere vehicle through which the plans are