Document 8Rvvy8vm4ZNVzqnoXvOJb8rZm

Inspection and Control Procedures petence in product safety, and should exer cise it Exposure to a moving part or danger ous chemical is fairly obvious, so is exposure to electrical fault, m most cases Safe packag ing and distributing of products should pose no problem for a qualified safety engineer, he should be called in to help Bases for claims The two bases upon which manufacturers of defective products are likely to be sued are negligence and breach of warranty, ex press or implied Small as well as large companies are vulnerable to these types of injury claims Manufacturers' responsibility for negli gence It is now generally recognized that manufacturers of goods may have a responsi bility to the consumer even though no direct relationship exists between them The duty is based on the fact that the manufacturer has made or sold goods which are likely to come into the hands of another and do harm if they are defective The consumer usually has a cause of action in negligence against the manufacturer, if There was a defect in the design or manufacture of the product which made it un reasonably dangerous, and The condition existed at the time that it left the seller's control, and The defect was the direct cause of the injury A cause of action in negligence may result from Failure to test to discover defects Inadequate or misleading directions for use Failure to give adequate warnings of possible danger to the user (In manv cases it would be prudent to warn of the dangers of improper use) Failure to explore the consequences of norma] wear, tear and abuse Manufacturers' responsibility for warranty There are several types of warranties imposed on (or assumed by) manufacturers A war ranty may be implied by law simply by virtue of the sale of the product, usually referred to as warranty of fitness and warranty of mer chantability Warranties may also be implied from the facts surrounding a transaction An example of this might be wording on labels, instruction pamphlets and even sales litera ture, any one of which might be found to imply warranties even though none were intended And of course, there is alwavs the obligation to abide by an obligation expresslv assumed Sometimes these express war ranties result in exposures unanticipated by the maker Strict liability of manufacturers. Selling of defective food is generally credited with prompting the Pure Food and Drug Acts of 1906 A majontv of courts impose strict liability in cases involving defective food and dnnk The strict liability rule is rationalized by the contention that the burden of acci dental injuries caused by defective products should be placed upon the seller because he is best able to distribute the loss to the gen eral public by means of insurance or price structure One prominent writer on tort law has suggested that imposition of strict liability for products amounts to a sy stem of levying damages as a part of the cost of doing busi ness After beginning with food and drink and their containers, the courts have since ex tended the doctrine to other products for use on the human body, such as shampoo, deter gents, permanent wave solutions and drugs Cases of histone importance have been de cided in the 1960's They have applied the strict liability to automobiles, power tools, airplanes, tires, furniture and consumer chemicals These cases have discarded the old requirement of foreseeability, have out right rejected attempted disclaimers bv the seller, and without adhenng to conventional theories of tort law and contract law, have declared the seller stnctlv liable in tort * This section and the next are based on Product Liability--What It Is, and What You Can Do About It, Kemper Insurance Co , Chicago, 1967 (See "References ") 80