After reading this case, I will never look at a jar of Planter’s peanuts the same way 😊. In this case
Judge Posner used the strict product liability theory specifically along with specifically citing the
doctrine of res ipsa loqutiur that “teaches that an accident that is unlikely to occur, unless the
defendant was negligent, is itself circumstantial evidence, that the defendant was negligent”
(Kubasek et al., 2019). Under this doctrine, the defendant’s negligence may be presumed and
thus does not need to be proven. In lieu of the plaintiff’s testimony, there was no reason to
believe that the plaintiff caused damage to the product or applied excessive force in closing a lid
with one hand.
Justice Posner reversed the lower courts decision using logic and critical thinking. As the case
states “No doubt there are men strong enough to shatter a thick glass jar with one blow. But
Welge’s testimony stands uncontradicted that he used no more force than the normal force that
one exerts in snapping a plastic lid onto a jar. So, the jar must have been defective” (Kubasek et
al., 2019). In this case, Judge Posner uses strict product liability which focuses on the product in
the reversing of the lower courts ruling. He also concluded that although not impossible, it was
highly improbable that the defect occurred after product were purchased.
I do agree with the judge’s decision in that based on the information that has been shared.
Under normal conditions, thick glass jars simply do not break due to the pressure of replacing a
lid which is meant to be removed and replaced many times. The ruling came down to the retailer
being held liable for damages due to strict liability.
This case reminds me of many well-known liability cases but one that is close to some of the work
that I do is the case of suit brough against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for their product Risperdal, a
product that was originally marketed to treat symptoms of Autism. The plaintiff’s (all males)
claimed that J&J falsely marketed the drug and failed to warn and report side effects. The
plaintiff’s won the case being awarded $8 billion in damages, after developing and suffering
gynecomastia after taking the drug.
References:
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., & Barkacs, L. L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law. McGraw Hill .
Negligence in tort law: Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se. Lawshelf Educational
Media. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2022, from
https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/negligence-in-tort-law-res-ipsa-
loquitur-and-negligence-per-se
Top 15 product liability lawsuits in the United States. Dordulian Law Group. (2020,
November 13). Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://www.dlawgroup.com/top-
product-liability-lawsuits/
