Product Defect Case Series

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 107 Nev. 535, 815 P.2d 601 (1991).

Product:

Injury:

Mechanism of Injury:

Nature of Defect:

Jury Verdict:

Issue on appeal:

Product Defect Law Categories:

Result:

Case Quotes:

When a product injures only itself the reasons for imposing a tort duty are weak and those for leaving the party to its contractual remedies are strong.

 

The tort concern with safety is reduced when an injury is only to the product itself. When a person is injured, the “cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune,” and one the person is not prepared to meet. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d [453] at 462, 150 P.2d [436] at 441 [ (1944) ]…. In contrast, when a  product injures itself, the commercial user stands to lose the value of the product, risks the displeasure of its customers who find that the product does not meet their needs, or, as in this case, experiences increased costs in performing a service. Losses like these can be insured. See 10A G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law §§ 42:385–42:401, 42:414–417 (2d ed.1982); 7 E. Benedict, Admiralty, Form No. 1.16–7, p. 1–239 (7th ed.1985); 5A J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 3252 (1970). Society need not presume that a customer needs special protection. The increased cost to the public that would result from holding a manufacturer liable in tort for injury to the product itself is not justified. Cf. United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173 (CA2 1947).

Id. at 871–72, 106 S.Ct. at 2302.

 

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 107 Nev. 535, 539–40, 815 P.2d 601, 603–04 (1991)