Also known as: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A · § 402A · Restatement 2d Torts 402A · 402A · Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule imposing strict 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 arises for resulting physical harm even if the seller exercised all possible care and even without any contractual relation with the injured party.
A defective pressure cooker sold by a manufacturer exploded in a kitchen, injuring a visiting neighbor who had never purchased the item. The neighbor sued the manufacturer under strict products liability. The court applied the rule to decide whether the product reached the user without substantial change and whether liability attached despite lack of privity.
Rhea Reynolds smoked cigarettes manufactured by Ridgeway Partners for decades and developed lung cancer. She sued the manufacturer on a strict products liability theory alleging the cigarettes were unreasonably dangerous when sold. The court applied the rule to determine whether the product reached her without substantial change and whether the manufacturer could be held liable despite extensive care in production.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
East River Steamship Corp. purchased turbines from Transamerica Delaval for its ships. The turbines failed at sea and caused only economic loss to the ships themselves. The owner sued the manufacturer in tort under a strict products liability theory. The court examined whether the rule extended to claims seeking recovery solely for damage to the product.
Ravi Reddy took a prescription drug manufactured by Rocky Mountain Mining and suffered severe side effects. He sued the manufacturer claiming the drug was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the factory. The court considered whether the rule applied to prescription drugs and whether the manufacturer could be strictly liable for design choices.
Regina Robinson was injured when her SUV manufactured by Radiant Technologies rolled over during an ordinary turn. She sued the manufacturer alleging the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous. The court evaluated the rule's application to design defect claims and the admissibility of post-sale evidence.
Ryan Roberts used a pneumatic tool made by Rising Sun Electronics and developed hand-arm vibration syndrome. He sued the manufacturer claiming the tool was defective and unreasonably dangerous when sold. The court applied the rule to decide whether the product was expected to reach users without substantial change and whether the manufacturer faced strict liability.
No. The rule expressly states that liability applies even though the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. Courts have applied this principle to bystanders and remote users who never purchased the product.
No. The rule applies although the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product. Strict liability focuses on the condition of the product when sold rather than on the seller's fault.
The plaintiff must show that the product was expected to and did reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. Post-sale alterations or misuse that constitute substantial change can defeat the claim.
…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…