Case 10-2 Discussion
Hi Professor and fellow classmates,
In the case Welge V. Planters Lifesavers, Justice Posner used strict product liability to find the defendant liable.
Under strict product liability, the courts can hold the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer responsible for the
actions of the product. The plaintiff must prove to the court that the product was defective when sold, so
defective that the product was unreasonably dangerous, and the cause of the plaintiff's injury. In this case, Welge
and partner Godfrey provided the court with evidence that the product was not damaged or had undergone
actions causing damage when in their possession. In addition, they were able to provide that they did not
damage, drop, or jostle the jar once in their possession.
The judge's reason for reversing the lower court's decision was based on the timeline of the shatter caused by
the jar. The plaintiff, Welge, applied force to the jar to close it. Such pressure with one hand could not cause
such damage to the jar. Therefore, the judge ruled that the jar had faced stress beyond what was to be from the
plaintiff's use. I do agree with the ruling in the Welge V. Planters Lifesavers case. I do believe that there was
some form of defect in the glass jar that later caused it to shatter on Welge. The force of his one hand pushing
down the lid should not cause a glass jar to shatter in such form. However, Welge's partner Godfrey could have
found a better way to provide evidence that the jar was purchased for the rebate. A copy of the receipt would
have been better-provided evidence rather than taking an Exacto knife to the jar. Even though this is not a
method I would have chosen, the slightest nick in the jar could have caused the jar to break faster than expected.
Regards,
******
Reference:
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., & Barkacs, L. L. (2020).
Dynamic Business Law
(5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
