A company produces and distributes a range of electric heaters. Several households experience electrical malfunctions with one particular model, leading to fires and extensive property damage. Under strict products-liability principles, which of the following facts would most likely establish the company's liability?
The consumers modified the heater in ways not recommended by the manufacturer.
The company implemented a comprehensive maintenance schedule for their products.
The heater did not include adequate instructions for safe operation.
The heater contained a faulty electrical component that failed during normal use.
Strict products liability attaches when a product is defective when it leaves the manufacturer's control and that defect is a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm. A heater that contains a faulty electrical component that fails during normal, intended use exemplifies a manufacturing defect and directly explains the electrical fires, so it is the strongest basis for liability. Although a failure to give adequate instructions can constitute a warning (marketing) defect, nothing in the facts indicates that missing instructions caused these malfunctions. Harm resulting from unforeseeable consumer modifications generally breaks the causal chain, and the company's internal maintenance program says nothing about the condition of the heaters when sold. Accordingly, the faulty component is the fact most likely to establish strict liability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'strict products liability' mean?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the different types of product defects?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does consumer modification affect manufacturer liability?