Editing Product liability (section)

=====Landmark legal cases=====

The first step towards modern product liability law occurred in the landmark New York case of ''[[MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.]]'' (1916), which demolished the privity bar to recovery in negligence actions.<ref name="Gifford" /><ref name="Owen" /><ref name="Kiely" />  By 1955, James was citing ''MacPherson'' to argue that "[t]he citadel of privity has crumbled," although Maine, the last holdout, would not adopt ''MacPherson'' until 1982.<ref name="Owen" />

The second step was the landmark New Jersey case of ''[[Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.]]'' (1960), which demolished the privity bar to recovery in actions for breach of implied warranty.<ref name="Owen" /><ref name="Kiely" />  Prosser cited ''Henningsen'' in 1960 as the "fall of the citadel of privity."<ref name="Owen" /><ref name="Kiely" />  The ''Henningsen'' court helped articulate the rationale for the imminent shift from breach of warranty (sounding in contract) to strict liability (sounding in tort) as the dominant theory in product liability cases, but did not actually impose strict liability for defective products.<ref name="Kiely" />

The third step was the landmark<ref>White, Robert Jeffrey. "[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Top+10+in+torts%3A+evolution+in+the+common+law.-a018526923 Top 10 in torts: evolution in the common law.]" ''Trial'' 32, no. 7 (July 1996): 50–53.</ref> California case of ''[[Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.]]'' (1963), in which the [[Supreme Court of California]] openly articulated and adopted the doctrine of strict liability in tort for defective products.<ref name="Owen" /><ref name="Kiely" /><ref name="HowellsPage_207">{{cite book |last1=Howells |first1=Geraint |last2=Owen |first2=David G. |editor1-last=Howells |editor1-first=Geraint |editor2-last=Ramsay |editor2-first=Iain |editor3-last=Wilhelmsson |editor3-first=Thomas |title=Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law |date=2018 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |location=Cheltenham |pages=202–230 |edition=2nd |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=codlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA207 |access-date=31 May 2020 |chapter=Products liability law in America and Europe|isbn=9781785368219 }}</ref>  ''Greenman'' heralded a fundamental shift in how Americans thought about product liability towards a theory of enterprise liability—instead of basing liability on the defendant's "fault" or "warranty", the defendant's liability should be predicated, as a matter of public policy, on the simple question of whether it was part of a business enterprise responsible for inflicting injuries on human beings.<ref name="Kiely" />  The theoretical foundation for enterprise liability had been laid by James as well as another law professor, [[Leon Green]].<ref name="OConnell">{{cite journal|last1=O'Connell|first1=Jeffrey|last2=Linehan|first2=John|editor1-last=Carrington|editor1-first=Paul D.|editor2-last=Jones|editor2-first=Trina|title=The Rise and Fall (and Rise Again?) of Accident Law: A Continuing Saga|journal=Law and Class in America: Trends Since the Cold War|date=2006|pages=349–363|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dMMqAmkAyyYC&pg=PA353|access-date=12 February 2017 |publisher=New York University Press |location=New York|isbn=9780814716540}}</ref> As noted above, it was ''Greenman'' which led to the actual emergence of product liability as a distinct field of private law in its own right.<ref name="ReimannPage251" />  Before this point, products had appeared in case law and scholarly literature only in connection with the application of existing doctrines in contract and tort.<ref name="ReimannPage251" />

The ''Greenman'' [[majority opinion]] was authored by then-Associate Justice [[Roger J. Traynor]], who cited to his own earlier [[concurring opinion]] in ''[[Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.]]'' (1944).  In ''Escola'', now also widely recognized as a landmark case,<ref name="OConnell" /><ref name="Vandall_Page27">{{cite book|last1=Vandall|first1=Frank J.|title=A History of Civil Litigation: Political and Economic Perspectives|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=9780199781096|page=27|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vw9pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27}}</ref><ref name="Feinman">{{cite book|last1=Feinman|first1=Jay M.|title=Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About American Law|date=2023|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=9780197662595|page=196|edition=6th|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BWi4EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA196}}</ref><ref name="Friedman">{{cite book |last=Friedman |first=Lawrence M. |title=American Law in the Twentieth Century |url=https://archive.org/details/americanlawin20t00frie |url-access=registration |location=New Haven |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2002 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/americanlawin20t00frie/page/356 356–357]|isbn=9780300091373 }}</ref> Justice Traynor laid the foundation for ''Greenman'' with these words:

<blockquote>Even if there is no negligence, however, public 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. It is evident that the manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot. Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the market it is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacture of the product, is responsible for its reaching the market. However intermittently such injuries may occur and however haphazardly they may strike, the risk of their occurrence is a constant risk and a general one. Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1547126968260564389 ''Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.''], 24 Cal. 2d 453, 462, 150 P.2d 436 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring).</ref></blockquote>

Traynor's argument for imposing strict liability in ''Escola'' "has had an enormous impact on the way legal scholars have understood products liability and tort law more generally".<ref name="Goldberg_Page_280">{{cite book |last1=Goldberg |first1=John C. P. |last2=Zipursky |first2=Benjamin C. |title=The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Torts |date=2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780195373974 |page=280 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KCqai3JPqxEC&pg=PA280 |access-date=12 March 2022}}</ref> The year after ''Greenman'', the Supreme Court of California proceeded to extend strict liability to ''all'' parties involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective products (including retailers).<ref name="Kiely" /><ref name="Nolan_Page_117">{{cite book |last1=Nolan |first1=Virginia |last2=Ursin |first2=Edmund |title=Understanding Enterprise Liability: Rethinking Tort Reform for the Twenty-First Century |date=1995 |publisher=Temple University Press |location=Philadelphia |isbn=9781566392303 |page=117 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4f5YE3F5gaYC&pg=PA117 |access-date=19 January 2021}}</ref><ref>''Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.'', [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C2/61C2d256.htm 61 Cal. 2d 256] (1964)</ref> In 1969, the court then held that such defendants were liable not only to direct customers and users, but also to any innocent bystanders randomly injured by defective products.<ref name="Nolan_Page_117" /><ref>''Elmore v. American Motors Corp.'', [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C2/70C2d578.htm 70 Cal. 2d 578] (1969).</ref>