The theory of liability that Justice Posner used in this case was
negligence via the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine notes
that an accident which is unlike to occur “is itself circumstantial
evidence that the defendant was negligent” (Kubasek et. al, 2019). a
This doctrine was used in combination with strict product liability to
find the defendant liable in this case.
One of the reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court is
that although the district judge noted that the plaintiff, Welge, failed
to exclude all possibilities that may have caused the accident aside
from a manufacturing defect, Justice Posner focused on the
excessiveness of such a situation. It is noted that the probability of
such damage is too remote and that “normal people do not lock up
their jars and cans lest something happens to damage these
containers while no one is looking” (Kubasek et. al, 2019). There is
also the defense regarding the normal and relatively safe
transportation of the peanut jar from its purchase by Godfrey to its
placement atop their fridge.
While I agree that it seems likely the jar had a manufacturing defect,
there is always the possibility that the jar was closed in a combination
of bad circumstances. a The angle the jar was closed at, the hardness
of the countertop underneath the jar, etc. may have all contributed to
the breakage. I only say this because there was an instance with a
roommate years back where our bathroom sink was essentially
destroyed. a They opened the medicine cabinet, a small cologne bottle
fell out, and it somehow perfectly contacted the sink to make it
shatter and create a massive hole.
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
