Product Defect Case Series

Elley v. Stephens, 104 Nev. 413, 760 P.2d 768, (1988).

Product:

Injury:

Mechanism of Injury:

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories: #Privity #Seller

Result:

Case Quotes:

We have held that an end user of a product has established a cause of action in strict liability against a manufacturer or distributor when “his injury is caused by a defect in the product, and [the user proves] that such defect existed when the product left the hands of the defendant.” Shoshone Coca–Cola Bottling v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 443, 420 P.2d 855, 858 (1966).

Elley v. Stephens, 104 Nev. 413, 417–18, 760 P.2d 768, 771 (1988).

---

However, even if we assumed, arguendo, that a prefab house is a product subject to the law of strict products liability,2 a strict liability theory is not applicable to an occasional seller of a product, who does not, in the regular course of his business, sell such a product. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965);3 Prosser and  Keaton on Torts 705 (5th ed. 1984) (“Only a seller who can be regarded as a merchant or one engaged in the business of supplying goods of the kind involved in the case is subject to strict liability, whether on warranty or in tort.”); Bailey v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 536 F.Supp. 84, 87 (N.D.Ohio 1982) (“[S]trict tort liability is not an appropriate theory of liability for application to the occasional seller); Lemley v. J & B Tire Co., 426 F.Supp. 1376, 1377 (W.D.Penn.1977) (“The plaintiffs cannot prevail on their [strict liability cause of action] because the defendants … are not sellers engaged in the business of selling such a product.”).

Elley v. Stephens, 104 Nev. 413, 418, 760 P.2d 768, 771–72 (1988).