32. In an action by the worker against the elevator manufacturer to recover for his back injury, is the worker likely to obtain a judgment for 100% of his 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.

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, and must not have been substantially altered at the time in reached/injured the plaintiff. One type of products liability claim is that of a manufacturing defect. A manufacturing defect occurs when a product emerges from the manufacturing process not only different from other products, but also unreasonably dangerous or dangerous beyond the expectations of the ordinary consumer.

B is correct. Here, a manufacturing defect caused the elevator to stall between floors, and the facts indicate that the defect existed at the time the elevator left the manufacturer's control. However, despite this defect, the elevator was not unreasonably dangerous beyond the expectations of the ordinary consumer, because the facts also indicate that the construction worker was in no danger. Therefore, because the construction worker was not in any danger despite the elevator's defect, he would not be able to prove that the elevator was unreasonably dangerous, and therefore would not be able to recover a judgment for 100% of his damages.

A is incorrect. The construction worker will not be able to recover damages, because he was not actually in any danger from the defective elevator and proving a manufacturing defect claim requires showing that the defective product was dangerous beyond the expectations of the ordinary consumer. However, the inherently dangerous nature of construction work would not serve as a blatant bar to the construction worker recovering on this or any other products liability claim.

C is incorrect. Although the elevator was manufactured defectively and stalled as a result, the construction worker would not recover damages from the manufacturer. Recovering on a manufacturing defect claim requires both that the product was defective and that it was unreasonably dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer. Here, the worker was in no danger when he was in the stalled elevator. Therefore, in the absence of a dangerous product, the construction worker would not recover against the manufacturer.

D is incorrect. The construction worker would not recover on the basis that he was falsely imprisoned in the elevator. Not only would the worker not recover because he was in no danger from the defective elevator, but false imprisonment is also inapplicable and irrelevant because it is an intentional tort and the facts here involve products liability.