Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)TortsMedium
A construction worker was injured when a defective scaffolding plank broke beneath him. The plank was supplied by a manufacturer and sold through a distributor to the construction company. The worker sues the manufacturer under a strict products liability theory. Which of the following defenses is most likely to be successful for the manufacturer?
- AThe distributor failed to properly inspect the plank before selling it.
- BThe worker assumed the risk by working on scaffolding.
- CThe worker modified the scaffolding plank against instructions.
- DThe manufacturer exercised all reasonable care in the plank's production.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. The worker modified the scaffolding plank against instructions.
In strict products liability, a manufacturer is generally liable for injuries caused by a defective product, regardless of fault. However, if the plaintiff's own actions, such as modifying the product in an unforeseeable way, directly caused the injury, it can serve as a defense (misuse or alteration).
Why the other options are wrong
- A. The distributor's negligence does not typically absolve the manufacturer of strict liability for a manufacturing defect.
- B. Working on scaffolding, while inherently risky, does not automatically constitute assumption of risk against a defective product unless the worker knew of the specific defect.
- D. The essence of strict products liability is that reasonable care in production is not a defense if the product is defective and caused injury.
Assumption of Risk (Products Liability)
A defense in products liability where the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly encountered a known risk posed by a defective product.
- Plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the defect and the risk.
- Plaintiff must voluntarily encounter the known risk.
- Often related to product misuse or alteration.
Memory trick: Product Liability: Defenses block the defect.