Also known as: Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A · §402A · 402A · Restatement 2d Torts 402A · strict products liability · Restatement (Second) of Torts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule imposing strict liability on one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. The plaintiff must show the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous under the ordinary consumer test.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
After Mark purchased a lawn mower from Apex Tools the blade detached during normal use and injured his leg. Mark proved the mower left the seller in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous. The court imposed strict liability on Apex under the rule.
Lisa bought a coffee maker from HomeGoods that exploded on first use and burned her arm. She showed the product was defective when sold and failed the ordinary consumer test. The court held HomeGoods strictly liable for her injuries.
David's child swallowed paint from a toy purchased at ToyMart and suffered lead poisoning. David established the toy was unreasonably dangerous in its defective condition at sale. The court applied strict liability against ToyMart.
Anna bought a used car from Speedy Motors whose brakes failed due to a manufacturing defect and caused a crash. She demonstrated the defect existed when sold and created unreasonable danger. The court imposed strict liability on the dealer.
Parents fed their infant formula from NutriPack that contained foreign particles and caused illness. They proved the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous under consumer expectations. The court held NutriPack strictly liable.
Tom sat in a folding chair sold by Patio World that collapsed because of a structural defect and caused a back injury. He showed the chair was defective when sold and failed the ordinary consumer test. The court applied strict liability to the seller.
The plaintiff must show the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous. The ordinary consumer test determines whether the product is unreasonably dangerous.
…upon proof of special facts amounting to express malice. Id. , § 908 and comment b, p. 555. Preparations in the mid-1960's for Restatement (Second) of Torts reflected what were deemed to be substantial changes in the law of defamation, primarily a trend toward limiting per se libels to those where the defamatory nature of the publication is…