What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the
defendant liable?
In the case of Welge v. Planters, the strict product liability theory and
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar led Justice Posner to find that the
defendant was liable. They implied that a case where an incident
cannot occur unless the user was negligent is by itself enough
evidence that the defendant had been negligent. The strict product
liability states that a seller or manufacturer of a defective product is
liable for another person's injuries. There is no evidence that the jar
was not defective when it left the factory or when it was sold in K-
Mart, which is why the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
What are the judge's reasons for reversing the decisions of the
lower court?
The judge reversed the lower court's decisions because he believed
that a reasonable amount of pressure would not shatter the glass jar
under normal circumstances. He also explained that when the jar
traveled from the defendant's place to the plaintiff's place where the
incident occurred, there was no evidence that the jar was damaged
along the way. Therefore the jar was defective from the beginning.
Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not? Feel free to
research and discuss other product liability cases of interest.
I agree with the judge's decision because there was no evidence that
the plaintiff mishandled the jar to cause the glass to shatter. A regular
jar would not break when it's being used normally.
A case I researched for product liability was the GM gas tank lawsuit.
In December of 1993, a drunk driver hit a 1979 Chevrolet Malibu in
Los Angeles. The collision caused the Malibu's gas tank to rupture
and catch fire which caused severe burns to six of its passengers. In
1999, the passengers of the Malibu filed a law suit against GM for
faulty designs. They pointed out that the gas tank was located only
11 inches from the rear bumper and was not well protected. Experts
testified that GM could have made changes to the design at $8.59
per car, providing more protection to the gas tank. GM stated that
the drunk driver was at fault for colliding with the Malibu and that its
gas tank design met federal standards. The judge awarded the
plaintiffs $4.9 billion.
Reference:
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Pollack, A. (1999, July 10). $4.9 Billion Jury Verdict Inb G.M. Fuel
Tank Case. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/10/us/4.9-billion-jury-
verdict-in-gm-fuel-tank-case.html
