Welge v. Planters Lifesavers .
Instructions:
Read Case 10-2, Welge v. Planters Lifesavers.
What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable? What are the judge’s reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court? Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not? Feel free to research and discuss other product liability cases of interest.
Solution.
Welge v. Planters Lifesavers.
Product Liability Claim, a case study of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers.
Under the state laws in the United States of America, the product liability is one of the ordinary legislations that stipulate that the supplier or producer of a product stands to be liable for the damages caused to the customer by a defective product (Katarina, 2012). Typically, customers may place product liability claims under three theories namely; negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability (Katarina, 2012). In the case of Welge, the judge applied the theory of negligence in making his ruling as the Justice affirmed that the injuries to Welge were not due to unforeseen mishandling of the product but due to defects earlier introduced. In this case, the seller and the manufacturers were negligent not to have confirmed the safety of the jar before placing it on the shelf for sale.
The Justice referred to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to ascertain that the defendant was negligent after reviewing the plaintiff’s testimony (Katarina, 2012). According to Justice Posner, the defect must have been introduced to the product earlier before Godfrey bought it considering that after the purchase, the customer did not subject it to any abnormal stress that might have caused it to break (Wuyts, 2014). Moreover, assuming that the probability that handling the product after purchase could damage it was minuscule, then probability that the product was defective when sold must be very high (Wuyts, 2014). From this argument, the defendant was, therefore, negligent and thus responsible for the defect.
I want to agree particularly with the judgment since all the evidence points to the possibility that the defendant was liable for the defect. Considering the plaintiff was handling the jar in the normal way when the damage occurred, there was no possibility that he had by any chance induced the damage (Wuyts, 2014).
References
Katarina, I. (2012). Civil liability of the producer for damage caused by a defective product. Pravni Zapisi, 3(2), 323-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/pravzap3-3033
Wuyts, D. (2014). The Product Liability Directive – More than two Decades of Defective Products in Europe. Journal of European Tort Law, 5(1), 1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2014-0001
