What is the cause of action? Negligence.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
allows the Pl to establish Duty and Breach.
Pl use of
res ipsa loquitur
unable to show any specific acts of negligence so she relied on
res ipsa loquitur.
res ipsa loquitur
The Df -
bottling company had
exclusive control of the bottle at the time the
negligent act must have occurred, that is, during the bottling
The Pl must show that the bottle was not changed after it left
the Df - control.
The Pl is
also required to prove that
she handled the bottle carefully, so as to negate her
own conduct as the source of the accident.
About the requirements
The Pl was
NOT required to eliminate every
remote possibility of injury to the bottle after the
Df lost control.
requirement is satisfied if there is evidence
permitting a reasonable
inference that it was NOT
accessible to extraneous harmful forces and that
it was carefully handled by the Pl
or any third party who may have moved or touched it.
sufficient showing that neither excessive charge or defect in
the glass would ordinarily been present if due care had been
The Df had
over both the charging
and inspection of the
manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article
that he has placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used
without inspection, proves to have a defect that
causes injury to human beings.
Manufacturers Liability was his negligence in the following
manufacturing process, OR
policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it
will most effectively reduce the
hazards to life and health inherent in
defective products that reach the
market. [Liability without negligence].
The risk of
injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among
the public as a cost of doing business.
a risk there should be general and constant protection and the
manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection.
Law of Warranty
caused by defective products
are usually remedied via tort through the law of warranty.
policy requires that the buyer be insured at
the sellers expense against injury.
Liability of the manufacturer
liability of the manufacturer to an immediate buyer injured by a
defective product follows without proof of negligence from the
implied warranty of safety attending the sale.
Cardozo's reasoning recognized the injured person as the real
party in interest and effectively
disposed of the theory
that the liability of the manufacturer incurred by his warranty
should apply only to the immediate purchaser.
longer approach products warily but accept them on faith,
relying on the reputation of the manufacturer, who has
sought to justify that faith by increasingly high
standards of inspection, and a readiness to make good on
defective products by way of
replacements and refunds.
there is greater reason to impose liability on the manufacturer
than on the retailer who is
but a conduit of a product that
he is not himself able to
manufacturer's liability should be defined in terms of
the safety of the product in
normal and proper use, and
should not extend to injuries
be traced to the product as it reached the market.