The rule of
special liability of a seller of a product for physical harm to
user or consumer applies only where the defective condition of
the product makes it unreasonably dangerous to the user or
sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be
contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the
ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its
Liability >> Strict Liability >> Directions or warning.
In order to
prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the
seller may be required to give directions or warning, on the
container, as to its use. But a seller is not required to warn
when the danger, or potentiality of danger, is generally known
Duty To Warn
>> Subjective Knowledge
subjective knowledge of the plaintiff is irrelevant on the issue
of duty to warn.
to be put to the jury is whether the danger, or potentiality of
danger, is generally known and recognized, and whether the
product as sold was dangerous to
an extent beyond that which would be
contemplated by the
ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the
ordinary knowledge common to the
community as to its characteristics.
Duty To Warn
>> Sellers Duty
duty is to the ultimate user or consumer.
of warnings must be measured according to
whatever knowledge and
understanding may be common to
the actual users, the possibly superior
knowledge and understanding
of their supervisors is irrelevant.
There can be
contributory negligence (really called
assumption of risk)
which bars recovery only
if plaintiff, the user or consumer, was aware
of and unreasonably embraced the danger.
The form of
contributory negligence which commonly passes under the name of
assumption of risk
must be subjective, conscious, and personal to the plaintiff.
negligence plainly cannot be imputed to the plaintiff from
any knowledge plaintiff's employer may have had concerning the
hazard which resulted in plaintiff's injury is irrelevant, where
the employer did not in fact communicate any superior knowledge
to plaintiff prior to the accident.
be true even if the employer himself had an independent legal
duty to warn plaintiff.