Powers v. Taser International, Inc.
174 P.3d 777 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability claim based on a failure to warn, the manufacturer's duty is determined by a foresight test, meaning liability is based on whether the manufacturer knew or should have known of the product's dangers given the scientific knowledge available at the time of distribution, not on dangers discovered subsequently.
Facts:
- Samuel E. Powers was a sixteen-year veteran deputy sheriff with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).
- On July 16, 2002, Powers attended an MCSO training course to become certified to carry the Advanced Taser M-26, a 'less-lethal' weapon manufactured by Taser International, Inc.
- Training materials from Taser stated the M-26 had no long-term effects and that the most significant known injuries were minor, such as cuts and bruises from falls.
- As a mandatory part of the certification, Powers agreed to be exposed to the M-26's electrical force.
- When struck by the device, Powers suffered a compression fracture of his T-7 spinal disc due to the powerful muscle contractions it caused.
- During treatment for his injury, Powers was diagnosed with severe osteoporosis, a pre-existing condition that weakens bones.
- As a result of his injury and subsequent medical restrictions, Powers was forced to resign from his position as a deputy sheriff.
- At the time of Powers' injury, Taser was not aware that the M-26 could produce muscle contractions strong enough to cause fractures.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel E. Powers filed a lawsuit against Taser International, Inc. in an Arizona trial court, alleging strict products liability for failure to warn.
- Prior to trial, Taser presented an offer of judgment to Powers, which he did not accept.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a general verdict in favor of Taser.
- Powers moved for a new trial, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The trial court awarded Taser sanctions in the form of expert witness fees under Rule 68(d), as the trial outcome was more favorable to Taser than its unaccepted offer of judgment.
- Powers, as the appellant, appealed the jury verdict and the award of sanctions to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a strict products liability claim based on a failure to warn, does the hindsight test apply, thereby imputing to the manufacturer knowledge of dangers that were discovered after the product was distributed?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, Judge
No, the hindsight test does not apply to strict liability claims for failure to warn. A product is defective due to an inadequate warning only if the manufacturer failed to warn of a risk that was known or scientifically knowable at the time the product was distributed. The court reasoned that unlike a design defect, which focuses on the quality of the product itself, a failure-to-warn claim inherently involves the manufacturer's conduct—the act of providing or not providing a warning. Applying a hindsight test would require manufacturers to warn against unknowable dangers, effectively making them insurers of their products, which is contrary to the principles of strict liability. This 'foresight' approach aligns with the Restatement (Third) of Torts and the majority of jurisdictions, while still distinguishing strict liability from negligence because the reasonableness of the manufacturer's failure to warn is immaterial; the focus is solely on whether the risk was knowable.
Analysis:
This decision formally bifurcates the analytical framework for strict products liability in Arizona, solidifying the 'hindsight test' for design defect claims (from Dart) while explicitly adopting a 'foresight test' for failure-to-warn claims. By rejecting the hindsight test for warnings, the court aligns Arizona with the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatement (Third) of Torts. This clarification imposes a significant burden on plaintiffs in failure-to-warn cases, as they must now prove not just that a product was dangerous, but that the specific danger was known or scientifically knowable at the time of manufacture or distribution. The ruling protects manufacturers from liability for truly unforeseeable risks that are discovered long after a product enters the market.
