Page 40 - The Handbook for Quality Management a Complete Guide to Operational Excellence

26 B u s i n e s s - I n t e g r a t e d Q u a l i t y S y s t e m s T h e Q u a l i t y F u n c t i o n 27

The first case to apply this modern rule was Greenman vs. Yuba Power
Products, Inc., in California in 1963. A party, Mr. Greenman, was injured
when a work piece flew from a combination power tool purchased for
him by his wife two years prior to the injury. He sued the manufacturer
and produced witnesses to prove that the machine was designed with
inadequate set screws.
The manufacturer, who had advertised the power tool as having “rug-
ged construction” and “positive locks that hold through rough or preci-
sion work” claimed that it should not have to pay money damages because
the plaintiff had not given it notice of breach of warranty within a reason-
able time as required. Furthermore, a long line of California cases had
held that a plaintiff could not sue someone not in privity with him unless
the defective product was food.
The court replied that this was not a warranty case but a strict liability
case. The decision stated that any “manufacturer is strictly liable … when
an arti cle he placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used without
inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a
human being.”
The concept of strict liability was a turning point for both the con-
sumer movement and quality control. The use of effective, modern qual-
ity control methods became a matter of paramount importance. The
concept is also called strict liability in tort, which is virtually synonymous
with the common usage of the term “product liability.” A tort is a wrong-
ful act or failure to exer cise due care resulting in an injury, from which
civil legal action may result. Tort law seeks to provide compensation to
people who suffer loss because of the dangerous or unreasonable actions
of others.
A related concept is that of negligence. Negligence occurs when one per-
son fails to fulfill a duty owed to another or fails to act with due care. There
are two elements necessary to establish negligence: a standard of care rec-
ognized by law, and a breach of the duty or requisite care. Also, the breach
of duty must be the proximate cause of the harm or injury. The accepted
standard of care is that of the “reasonable person.” The court must measure
the action of the parties involved relative to the actions expected from an
imaginary reasonable person. To muddy the waters further, the court must
weigh the risk or danger of the situation against the concept of “reasonable
risk.” Clearly, these concepts are far from cut and dried.
The case cited above, and many other developments since, have
resulted in a feature that is unique to product liability law: namely, the con-
duct of the manufacturer is irrelevant.
The plaintiff in a product liability suit need not prove that the manufac-
turer failed to exercise due care; he need show only that the product was
the proximate cause of harm, and that it was either defective or unreason-
ably dan gerous. This is what is meant by “strict liability.” In a sense, it is

02_Pyzdek_Ch02_p015-030.indd 27 11/16/12 4:46 PM