Straight Product Liability Case Study

The doctrine of straight product liability holds that manufacturer of product to be responsible in compensating the user of the product for injuries suffered resulting from a dangerously defective product in spite of the manufacturer had adhered to strict quality control procedures. Under this doctrine, plaintiff is able to recover damages even if manufacturer had taken reasonable steps to prevent the defect. This doctrine successfully shifts the burden of proof from the consumer to the defendant. When strict liability applies, the plaintiff does not need to prove that a manufacturer was negligent, but only if that the product was in defect condition. In strict liability, there is the assumption that the manufacturer or producer was aware

The possible abuses in capitalist market may include business firms and manufacturers using unethical business practices during the production or manufacturing of products. As businesses firms and manufacturers in capitalism are profit-oriented, they tend to ignore the consideration of the potentially consequences of their products to their consumers. Hence, they are more likely to produce products that are in demand, as long as the profit motive is achieved. For instance, the car manufacturers might ignore the importance of installing seat-belts, air-bags and other safety features as these safety devices lowered their revenues. As a result, consumers in capitalist market or the society as a whole would be exposed to products that are unsafe and harmful such as defective goods. The product quality and safety may not up to standards as they do not find it sufficiently profitable to exercise due care.

In the case of MacPherson v Buick Motor Car, the doctrine of privity that required a contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant was removed. As a result of court’s decision, plaintiff consumers are able to sue and recover damages arisen from the manufacturer of a defective good. Next, doctrine of strict product liability holds manufacturer to be responsible for damages resulting from any product’s

Research has found that that over the years capitalism has passed through many phrases which forced capitalists to amend their rules under which they reside. Many developed countries that employ capitalism tend to rely more on tort laws such as strict product liability theory to secure the greatest amount of consumer protection. The reason for having strict liability is because strict product liability can raises standards where the health and safety of the public is at stake and forces manufacturers in a position of responsibility to take extra precautions. Strict product liability theory helps to induce business firms and manufacturers to guarantee product safety as they know they are held liable for injuries caused by their products, which they cannot avoid. Without strict product liability, the reality of the capitalist market tend to be caveat emptor which means “Let the Buyer Beware!” where an injured consumer could not sue the manufacturer and recover damages caused by a defective product. By complying with this theory, manufacturers will make effort to enhance safety of products that are free from dangerous