Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

2-1 Discussion Liability

In Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., Justice Posner found the defendant guilty under the strict product liability doctrine. The plaintiff was injured when a glass jar broke while being handled normally. The judge determined the defendant was negligent based on the concept of res ipsa loquitur, as the evidence showed the defective jar was introduced before sale and the plaintiff's actions did not cause the failure. The judge agreed the defendant was liable as the evidence pointed to the jar being defective when sold.

Uploaded by

Lyca Mae
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views2 pages

2-1 Discussion Liability

In Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., Justice Posner found the defendant guilty under the strict product liability doctrine. The plaintiff was injured when a glass jar broke while being handled normally. The judge determined the defendant was negligent based on the concept of res ipsa loquitur, as the evidence showed the defective jar was introduced before sale and the plaintiff's actions did not cause the failure. The judge agreed the defendant was liable as the evidence pointed to the jar being defective when sold.

Uploaded by

Lyca Mae
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 17 F.3D 209 (7 th cir. 1994)

In the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, Justice Posner found the

defendant guilty under the strict product liability. Product liability is one of the

common legislations in the United States of America that stipulates that the

supplier or maker of a product is accountable for the damages caused to the

consumer by a defective product. Customers often file product liability cases

under three theories: negligence, breach of warranty, and strict product

liability (Katarina, 2012). In the case of Welge, the judge used the negligence

approach in formulating his judgement, stating that Welge's injuries were not

caused by unforeseeable mistreatment of the product, but rather by faults that

were previously introduced. In this case, the seller and producers were

irresponsible in failing to confirm the jar's safety before placing it on the shelf

for sale.

After analyzing the plaintiff's testimony, the Judge used the res ipsa

loquitur concept to determine that the defendant was negligent (Katarina,

2012). According to Judge Posner, the defective must have been introduced

to the device before Godfrey purchased it, because the customer did not give

it to any excessive stress that may have caused it to fail after the purchase.

Therefore, if the likelihood of damaging the object after purchase is negligible,

the probability that the product was faulty when sold must be quite high

(Wuyts, 2014). According to this argument, the defendant was careless and

hence liable for the defect.


I want to agree with the verdict in particular since all of the evidence

pointed to the defendant being accountable for the defect. Given that the

plaintiff was handling the jar normally when the damage happened, there was

no way he could have caused the harm.

References

Katarina, I. (2012). Civil liability of the producer for damage caused by a

defective product. Pravni Zapisi, 3(2), 323-351. Retrieved March 12,

2023, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/pravzap3-3033

Wuyts, D. (2014). The Product Liability Directive – More than two Decades of

Defective Products in Europe. Journal of European Tort Law, 5(1),

1-34. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jetl

-2014-0001

You might also like