29. Does the homeowner have a viable claim against the manufacturer of the snowblower for damages?

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, 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. Commercial suppliers who produce or sell defective products can be held strictly liable by consumers. An element of a strict products liability claim is that the defect at issue must have existed at the time the product left the defendant's control. Here, there is no indication from the facts that the snowblower was designed or manufactured defectively. Further, a commercial supplier can only be held strictly liable if the product reached the plaintiff (and caused the injury) without substantial alteration. Here, prior to being injured, the homeowner gave the snowblower to a mechanic to repair, and the mechanic altered the device by making changes to the switch mechanism. This was a change which the snowblower manual expressly warned against. Because the mechanic substantially altered the snowblower through improper repairs, and this action by a third party was the cause of the homeowner's injury, the homeowner would not be able to recover against the snowblower manufacturer.

A is incorrect. 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. In this case, the homeowner merely failed to discover the defect caused by the mechanic's repairs. Further, the homeowner was not actually contributorily negligent to his injuries. Contributory negligence arises when the plaintiff fails to act prudently and is considered to be a contributory factor in the injury suffered. Here, the plaintiff did not have a duty to furnish the snowblower's manual to the mechanic, and was not imprudent to fail to do so. Under the facts as presented, the causation of the homeowner's injury lies entirely with the mechanic. Therefore, although the homeowner will not recover because the snowblower was substantially altered, the homeowner did not engage in contributory negligence which would decrease his recovery let alone bar it entirely.

C is incorrect. Although the homeowner was injured by the snowblower, he would not be able to recover against the manufacturer, because the injury was caused by the mechanic's improper repair rather than a manufacturing or design defect in the snowblower. To recover on a manufacturing defect claim, the product at issue must have emerged from the manufacturing process different from and unreasonably dangerous compared to other products of the same time. However, a design defect exists when every product in a line has a dangerous propensity due to mechanical features or packaging. Under the facts as presented, there is no indication that the snowblower suffered from either of these defects. Therefore, because the homeowner's injury was not caused by a defect for which the manufacturer would be liable, the homeowner cannot recover against the manufacturer.

D is incorrect. Not only would the snowblower manufacturer not be liable to the homeowner because the mechanic was the cause of the homeowner's injury, but it would also not be a basis for recovery that the manufacturer did not provide a manual to the mechanic or other repair personnel. The manufacturer had a duty to provide warnings with the snowblower, and it fulfilled this duty. However, it had no duty to provide the operating manual to third parties.