In the Welge v. Planters Lifesavers case, the theory that led Justice
Posner to find the defendant liable was by the strict liability. The
judge's reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court were
because of the testimony that Welge told Judge Posner. The
testimony that was told is that he only used a normal amount of
force to open up the lid on the jar, so the jar must've been defective.
Welge and Godfrey's testimony "excludes all reasonable possibility
that the defect was introduced into the jar after Godfrey plucked it
from a shelf in the K-Mart store" (Kubasek et al., 2020 p. 257). The
res ipsa loquitur is when an accident occurs because of the
defendant's negligence. The judge determined that the accident can
be evidence of a liability by "If it is the kind of accident that would
not have occurred but for a defect in the product, and if it is
reasonably plain that the defect was not introduced after the product
was sold, the accident is evidence that the product was defective
when sold" (Kubasek et al., 2020 p. 257).
In this case, I am undecided on if Judge Posner made the right
choice. It's possible that the plaintiff Welge wasn't being as truthful
as he led on to be. He could've used more force than he intended to
while pushing down on the jar to put the lid on that led to the jar
breaking. Welge and Godfrey could've closed the refrigerator or the
freezer harder than they expected and made the jar tip over causing
the jar to weaken. It is also possible that that jar could've moved
around while Godfrey was driving home from K-Mart. However, a jar
shouldn't have broken if it was manufactured properly and wasn't a
defective jar.
Reference: Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D.
J., & Barkacs, L., (2020). Theories of Liability for Defective Products.
McGraw-Hill Connect.
