Question

What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable? What are the judge’s reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court? Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not? Feel free to research and discuss other product liability cases of interest.

Answer 1

This refers to the case Welge v. Planters Lifesavers,

Justice posner used the docTrine of res ipsa loquiTar in the case. This implies that in cases where the accident cannot occur unless the user was negligient is by itself enough evidence that the defendent has in fact been negligient. The accident itself was the cause of the damage.

The judge believes that normal amount of pressure could not have shattered the glass jar since they are sturdy by nature. He explains the process of the jar reaching the defendents place from the store to the place of accident during which it was subjected to a lot of stress and if it were defective it would have broke in this process. Thus the probability that the jar was defective was very low.

I agree with the decision since truly glass jars are subjected to a lot of pressure and stress during the process of purchasing and usage. If the jar were defective, it would have broken when it was put in the shopping bag itself or even during billing. Hence it is highly likely that the defect was introduced after the sale before she used the jar.