Phillips v. Kimwood Machine Company
525 P.2d 1033 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product is considered dangerously defective if a reasonably prudent manufacturer, with constructive knowledge of the product's harmful character, would not place it into the stream of commerce. This standard applies to defects in design and failures to warn about dangers arising from foreseeable uses of the product.
Facts:
- Pope and Talbot purchased a large, six-headed sanding machine from the defendant for its wood products manufacturing business.
- The machine was designed for use with an automatic feeder, but Pope and Talbot installed and used it with a manual feeding system.
- An employee of the defendant inspected the installation at Pope and Talbot's facility and became aware that the machine was being fed manually.
- The defendant did not warn Pope and Talbot about the danger of the machine 'regurgitating' boards when being fed manually.
- On the day of the incident, Phillips was feeding extra-thick fiberboard sheets into the sander, for which the machine's settings had been adjusted.
- A thin sheet of fiberboard, mixed in with the thicker sheets, was fed into the machine.
- Because the machine was set for thicker boards, the pressure rolls were insufficient to hold the thin sheet against the force of the sanding belts.
- The machine violently ejected the thin sheet backward, striking Phillips in the abdomen and causing serious injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Phillips sued the defendant manufacturer in a trial court on a theory of strict products liability.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
- Plaintiff Phillips, the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a product become dangerously defective when a manufacturer, aware of a foreseeable use not intended by the original design, fails to warn the user of the risks associated with that use?
Opinions:
Majority - Holman, J.
Yes. A product can be dangerously defective if a manufacturer fails to warn of risks associated with a foreseeable use. The court adopted a 'prudent manufacturer' test to determine if a product is dangerously defective, which states that a product is defective if a reasonable manufacturer, knowing of the product's propensity to cause injury, would not have sold it without a warning. This test imputes knowledge of the product's risks to the manufacturer, a concept known as constructive knowledge. In strict liability, the focus is on the condition of the product itself, not the reasonableness of the manufacturer's actions, as in negligence. Here, the defendant knew its machine was being fed manually. A jury could find that a prudent manufacturer with knowledge of the regurgitation risk would have warned Pope and Talbot to use a safety device or an automatic feeder, and the failure to do so rendered the machine dangerously defective.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'prudent manufacturer' test for determining whether a product is 'dangerously defective' in design or failure-to-warn cases. By imputing knowledge of the product's risks to the manufacturer, the court effectively blends negligence concepts (what a reasonable person would do) with strict liability. This creates a clearer standard for juries and places a greater burden on manufacturers to anticipate and warn against dangers from all foreseeable uses of their products, not just the intended ones. The decision distinguishes strict liability from negligence by focusing on the product's condition rather than the manufacturer's conduct, clarifying a key theoretical point in products liability law.
