Also known as: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A · § 402A · 402A · strict products liability · Restatement 2d Torts 402A
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule imposing liability on one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property. The seller must be engaged in the business of selling such a product and the product must reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. Liability attaches even if the seller exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product and even if the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
A retailer sold a power saw whose blade guard was missing. The tool injured a consumer who had received it as a gift. The retailer is strictly liable even though it had no role in manufacturing and had inspected the product with reasonable care.
East River Steamship purchased turbines from Transamerica Delaval. The turbines failed at sea and caused only economic losses to the ships. The court dismissed the strict products liability claim because the harm was purely economic and not personal injury or property damage to other property.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Patients sued a drug manufacturer alleging strict products liability for injuries from a prescription medication. The court held that the manufacturer could not be strictly liable for design defects in prescription drugs because the benefits and risks must be weighed at the time of marketing.
A driver sued an SUV manufacturer after a rollover on a paved road. The court excluded post-manufacture evidence of similar incidents and required that defect be measured by information known when the vehicle entered the stream of commerce.
A buyer sued a manufacturer after an SUV overturned on a paved road. The court held that breach of implied warranty of merchantability can exist even if the product is reasonably safe for its intended off-road use when the product is not fit for a reasonably foreseeable on-road use.
A smoker sued a tobacco company alleging strict products liability for inadequate warnings. The court addressed whether federal cigarette labeling laws preempted the state tort claim and held that some claims survived while others were preempted.
No. The rule imposes liability even if the seller exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product.
Supporting sources
No. The rule applies even if the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
Supporting sources
No. The rule applies only when the defendant is engaged in the business of selling the type of product at issue.
Supporting sources
…if the product was defective. In 1965, soon after our decision in Greenman , the Restatement Second of Torts published section 402A, which set forth the strict liability doctrine (hereinafter section 402A).[^maj-1] Almost all states have adopted some form of strict liability since that time. (Prosser & Keeton on Torts…