Component Part Manufacturers' Duty to Add Safety Features
June 11, 2007
Oftentimes plaintiffs in product liability cases sue not only the finished product manufacturer or the operator of the product but also the manufacturer of various smaller component parts that were integrated into the final allegedly-defective good. Issues arise related to relative duties of the final product manufacturer or operator versus the component part manufacturer. There is often a question of duty with respect to the addition of safety features. Who, for example, has a duty to install a hand guard on a punch press – the manufacturer of the press or the employer who purchases the press and installs other parts to make it operational? See Bullock v. Gulf & Western Manu., 128 Mich. App. 316, 322, 340 N.W.2d 294, 297 (1983) (holding employer had the duty).
Different theories have evolved to deal with the complex liability issues associated with component parts. This article will explore the potential liability of component part manufacturers for the addition of certain safety features.
Background
As a general rule, manufacturers are liable for injuries resulting from the unreasonably dangerous condition of their products that existed at the time the product left their control. Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 2 (1998). Obviously, a modified approach to this rule is required in the case of component parts integrated into some other final product.
Pursuant to the Restatement, a component part manufacturer is liable for harm caused through the use of the final product only if (1) the component was itself defective and this defect caused the harm, or (2) the component part manufacturer substantially participated in the integration of the component into the final product and the integration caused the harm. Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 5 (1998). The theory behind this rule is that component part manufacturers are generally not in a position to assess all the potential applications for their products and thus all the potential dangers. Of course, when the component part manufacturer is involved in the integration process, some responsibility for the safety of the final product – and correspondingly, some liability associated with dangers from the use of the integrated component – may be assigned to the component part manufacturer.
To the extent a component part manufacturer did not assist in the creation of specifications for the complete product or system – and to the extent a component part manufacturer did not see the final product or visit the location of final operation – a component part manufacturer may avoid liability if the component part itself is not defective.
Substantial Participation in Integration
The essential question, then, is how much participation is “substantial participation” for claims against a manufacturer of a nondefective component. In DeLeon v. Commercial Manufacturing and Supply Co., the California Court of Appeals denied summary judgment for the designer-manufacturer of custom-made bins used on a fruit processing line, after an employee’s arm got caught in an overhead line shaft while she was cleaning the bins. 148 Cal. App. 3d 336, 350 (1983). The court focused on the designer-manufacturer’s participation in the integration process, namely visiting the factory to see the prototype bin that the factory owner had made and set up for operation. Id. at 341. The designer-manufacturer’s representative testified that he never noticed the overhead line shaft and would not have been interested in it since it had nothing to do with the manufacture of the bins. Id. In denying summary judgment for the component bin manufacturer, the court noted that the factory owner relied on the designer-manufacturer’s expertise, and “whether [the representative] should have observed the surroundings is a factual question.” Id. at 345.
While it appears that participation in drafting the specifications can expose a component manufacturer to liability, courts have held that mere knowledge of the final design of the completed product does not. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Childress v. Gresen Manufacturing Co. stated that it is overly broad to say “that a manufacturer of a component part with knowledge of the final design of the completed product is responsible for the safety of the final product if the component part becomes potentially dangerous in its ultimate use.” 888 F.2d 45, 49 (6th Cir. 1989). To impose such a standard “would be contrary to public policy, as it would encourage ignorance on the part of component part manufacturers or alternatively require them to retain an expert in the client’s field of business to determine whether the client intends to develop a safe product.” Id.
This reasoning suggests that foreseeability of final design is not a consideration in assessing component part liability. See In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation, 996 F.Supp. 1110, 1114 (N.D.Ala. 1997) (“[t]he alleged foreseeability of the risk of the finished product is irrelevant to determining the liability of the component part manufacturer because imposing such a duty would force the supplier to retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer’s line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems”). However, other courts continue to consider foreseeability as part of the component part liability analysis. In Hall v. Scott USA, Ltd., the Georgia Court of Appeals considered the liability of a manufacturer of lenses that served as a component part in motorcycle goggles to which the second company affixed a cleaning device. 198 Ga. App. 197, 400 S.E.2d 700 (1990). In granting summary judgment in favor of the component manufacturer, the court stated that it was not foreseeable that the lenses would become a component part of the goggles involved and that the lenses were capable of being used in connection with goggles without a cleaning system. Id. at 201, 400 S.E.2d at 704.
Defective Itself
In assessing whether the component is defective itself, courts should consider whether the component was defective at the time it was sold to the manufacturer. According to comment b of the Restatement, “a component not defective in itself … does not become defective merely because a purchaser decides to integrate the component into another product in a way that renders the design of the integrated product defective.” Notwithstanding the Restatement’s comment, courts sometimes find a defect in a component that became dangerous only upon integration. The issue then becomes whether a component part manufacturer has a duty to add safety features to an otherwise safe component in anticipation of the component’s integration into another product.
Courts have varied on the issue of whether a component part manufacturer has a duty to add a safety feature. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Verge v. Ford Motor Co., established a three-part test in assessing the liability of Ford, the manufacturer of a cab and chassis that was converted into a garbage truck, which according to the plaintiff, should have included additional mirrors and a back-up alarm. 581 F.2d 384 (1978). The cab and chassis manufactured by Ford was considered a multipurpose vehicle that could be converted into a variety of uses by adding certain accessories. The court held that “where, as here, the finished product is the result of substantial work by more than one party, we must determine responsibility for the absence of a safety device by looking primarily to at least three factors”: (1) trade custom (at what stage is a safety device generally installed); (2) relative expertise (which party is best acquainted with the design problems and safety techniques in question); and (3) practicality (at what stage is installation of the device most feasible). Id. at 387.
Concluding that there was insufficient evidence to determine trade custom, the Verge court resolved the second and third factors in favor of Ford. Id. at 388-89. The court determined that the secondary manufacturer had more expertise than Ford in the design of garbage trucks, noting also that (a) there was no evidence that Ford ever installed a warning device in its cabs and chassis and (b) there was not even any direct evidence that Ford was aware that any of its cabs and chassis were being converted into garbage trucks. Id. at 388. The court found that the installation of a buzzer was more practically installed by the secondary manufacturer. Id. at 389. Importantly, the court stated “we do not suggest that Ford could not foresee that its F-700 chassis would be converted for use as a garbage truck.” Id. at 389 n.6. The court explained that, despite the foreseeability, the secondary manufacturer “was in a much better position than Ford to incorporate the safety features necessitated by such use.” Id. at 389.
In those circuits adopting the Verge factors it does not appear that foreseeability of the ultimate use is a determinative factor in finding liability. See, e.g., Trevino v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, 882 F.2d 182 (5th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1076 n.14 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying the Verge factors and upholding the grant of summary judgment in favor of Yamaha who conceded that the modification of its golf cart to a maintenance vehicle was a foreseeable modification).
Courts also vary as to whether the component part manufacturer’s expectation that the final product manufacturer will install a safety device excuses the component part manufacturer from liability. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp., for example, stated that “[w]here a manufacturer places into the channels of trade a finished product which can be put to use and which should be provided with safety devices because without such it creates an unreasonable risk of harm, and where such safety devices can feasibly be installed by the manufacturer, the fact that he expects that someone else will install such devices should not immunize him.” 60 N.J. 402, 410, 290 A.2d 281, 285 (1972). It is noteworthy that in Bexiga, the court expressly found that one safety device could be installed for all uses of the manufacturer’s punch press. Cf. Bullock, 128 Mich. App. at 322, 340 N.W.2d at 297 (stating that the safety guard urged by the plaintiff would have prevented certain uses of the press and, therefore, the press manufacturer was not obligated to install the guard). The court in Verge distinguished Bexiga on these grounds, stating that it was not feasible to install a back-up buzzer on all F-700 trucks. Verge, 581 F.2d at 389.
To the contrary, the California Court of Appeals in Fierro v. International Harvester Co. found International Harvester Co., the cab and chassis manufacturer, not liable for injuries sustained when a fuel tank was breached and a fire ensued. The California Court of Appeals reasoned that International Harvester Co. “could reasonably expect that [the truck manufacturer] would take appropriate measures to insure proper design to cover and protect the fuel tanks.” 127 Cal. App. 3d 862, 869 (1982).
Also relevant may be the existence or absence of laws or regulations requiring the addition of a certain safety feature. In granting summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, the Georgia Court of Appeals, in Ogletree v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., found significant the absence of “any federal, state, or local law or industry standard” requiring back-up alarms to be installed as standard equipment on incomplete truck cabs and chassies. 245 Ga. App. 1, 4, 535 S.E.2d 545, 549 (2000). Discussing trade custom and practicality, but not specifically citing Verge, the court noted that “every lay and expert witness who testified on the subject admitted that he had never seen a fertilizer spreader truck with a back-up alarm” and no law required such alarms for agricultural equipment. Id. at 6, 535 S.E.2d at 549-550.
Conclusion
The analysis applied in determining a component part manufacturer’s liability varies depending on the jurisdiction. Under the Restatement, a component part manufacturer is only liable if the component was itself defective or the manufacturer substantially participated in its integration into the completed product. Collaboration in the design of the completed product or assistance in the assembly process may constitute substantial participation. Some courts have deemphasized the importance of the foreseeability of the danger in assessing the liability of component part manufacturers. To the extent the analyses in these cases, particularly the three-part test in Verge, lead to more predictable and, some might argue, more equitable results, component part manufacturers may wish to emphasize their application.
For more information, e-mail Jane Warring at jane.warring@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.