25. If the worker were to sue the company, would the worker be likely to prevail?

A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense in a strict products liability action where the plaintiff merely failed to discover the defect or guard against its existence, or where the plaintiff's misuse was reasonably foreseeable. However, the assumption of risk may be a defense, where the plaintiff engaged in voluntary and unreasonable conduct and used the product despite discovering the defect and being aware of the danger.

B is correct. A product is defective if it fails to include a feasible safety device that would prevent injuries foreseeably incurred in ordinary use. A plaintiff can recover on a design defect claim by prevailing on a risk-utility analysis, typically by demonstrating the existence of an economically feasible alternative design.

Here, the worker was injured while making ordinary use of the press, and the press was defective because it lacked a safety device that could have prevented the injury. That the company sold the press both with and without the safety device and recommended that the version with the safety device be purchased does not absolve the company of liability. Instead, it is evidence that the company foresaw injuries being caused by the press which lacked a safety device, but nonetheless, kept the product on the market. Further, the company itself also provided evidence that a feasible alternative design existed, since the press which came with a safety device was only slightly more expensive. Therefore, the worker would likely recover, because the company sold a press without a safety device, the worker was injured by the press, and a feasible alternative device existed.

A is incorrect. Although causation is one part of finding a manufacturer liable, it is not in itself sufficient to impose liability. Instead, the company would be liable, because it sold a press which was defective because it was unsafe due to lacking a safety device, the injury caused by this defect was foreseeable, and an economically feasible alternative existed on the market.

C is incorrect. The failure of the worker's employer to purchase the press with a safety device would not be a superseding intervening cause of the worker's injury, because manufacturers are liable for injuries resulting from foreseeable ordinary uses of their product. Here, it was foreseeable that the worker's employer and others might purchase the press without a safety device to save money and that the injury would result, since the company also offered a slightly cheaper version which had the safety device removed. Offering the safety device as an alternative was not adequate, and instead indicates that the company had reason to foresee that the press would pose a significant risk to those who operated it, if used without a safety device. Despite this knowledge, the company continued to sell both versions rather than selling a press with a non-removable safety device. Therefore, the worker would likely recover against the company.

D is incorrect. The company's liability would not be cut short by their recommendation that purchasers, including the worker's employee, purchase the press with a safety device. A manufacturer cannot fulfill its obligation to make a safe product by warning purchasers and users that the product is unsafe. Instead, the company's decision to provide the warning bolsters the evidence that the press used by the worker was defective, and despite foreseeing the dangers of the defect, the company nonetheless kept the product on the market.