Justice Posner theorized that the defendant was liable because there
was a lack of reasonable evidence that Welge handled the jar with
neglect. To put it in plain language the Welge handled the jar of
peanuts just like any other person would, they took it off the shelf at
the store, placed it in the cart, the conveyor belt, it was bagged, put
in the trunk, taken out, placed on the floor, and finally on top of the
fridge. Furthermore the Judge explained precautions such as locking
up the jar under key and lock to essentially prevent someone else
from damaging the jar throughout the use of the product's life was
just not something that people do, and thus unreasonable to expect.
In summary Welge handled and used the product the same way any
other person would, and thus the jar shattered because of a defect
from the manufacturer.
Under the circumstances specified by the judge I find it reasonable to
believe that Welge was not responsible for the jar shattering. While
it is hard to keep a personal bias from the case I personally think it is
really hard to make a jar merely shatter as despite being made of
glass they are pretty sturdy unless you drop it. I feel that a case that
would have favored the defendant more in terms of liability would
have been if the jar shattered after the consumer finished the
product and used it for storing other products, canning/preserving,
or other miscellaneous repurposing.
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., &
Barkacs, L. L. (2020).
