Hi Prof B and Class –
The doctrine used by Justice Posner was the Strict Product Liability theory for the Welge v.
Planters Lifesavers case, which “can be brought when a product injures a person with a
manufacturing defect that caused that product to be unreasonably dangerous” (Kubasek et al.,
2020). The glass that broke is the accident that occurred. The court felt that an error occurred
during the manufacturing of the glass which is why the glass broke causing injury. The case was
overturned in the favor of the plaintiff, Welge. This was overturned by Justice Posner due to Res
ipsa loquitur, which implies the accident cannot occur unless the user was negligent.
The reasoning for the judge reversing the decisions of the lower court is because he believes that
putting on lid on a jar should not shatter the jar by simply just using the normal amount of force.
He then goes to explain the course that the jar took to get to the defendants place. This can cause
a lot of stress to the jar and if it were defective it would have been broken in this process.
Therefore, it seems as though the likelihood of the jar being defective is very low.
I do agree with the decision that was made. If the jar was defective, it seems like it would have
been damaged during transportation. Also there is really no evidence to prove that there was
misuse or mishandling on the plaintiff’s part.
-Jenn
References:
Kubasek N. et. Al. (2020) Dynamic Business Law (5th Edition) McGraw Hill9
