Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons
938 F.2d 1033 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The informational content of a book is not a 'product' for the purposes of strict products liability. A book publisher has no independent legal duty under negligence principles to investigate the accuracy of the texts it publishes.
Facts:
- Defendant Putnam, an American book publisher, purchased and distributed copies of a reference guide titled 'The Encyclopedia of Mushrooms'.
- Putnam neither wrote nor edited the book, which was originally created by British authors and a British publisher.
- Plaintiffs purchased the book to aid them in identifying and collecting wild mushrooms for consumption.
- In 1988, Plaintiffs relied on the descriptions in the book to determine which mushrooms were safe to eat.
- After cooking and consuming the mushrooms they had gathered, Plaintiffs became critically ill from poisoning.
- Both Plaintiffs suffered severe liver damage requiring transplants, allegedly because the book contained erroneous information about identifying deadly mushrooms.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Putnam, the publisher, in U.S. District Court, alleging products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation.
- Putnam filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that a book's content is not a product and that it had no duty to investigate the text's accuracy.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Putnam.
- Plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Putnam as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the informational content of a book considered a 'product' for the purposes of strict products liability, and does a publisher have a duty under negligence principles to ensure the accuracy of the content it distributes?
Opinions:
Majority - Sneed, Circuit Judge
No. The informational content of a book is not a product subject to strict liability, and a publisher does not have a duty of care to ensure the accuracy of its publications. The court distinguished between the physical properties of a book (paper, ink), which can be a product, and the intangible ideas and expressions it contains, which cannot. Products liability law is designed for the tangible world of physical items, not the 'delicate issues' surrounding ideas. Imposing strict liability on the expression of ideas would create a chilling effect on speech, contrary to First Amendment values, as publishers would become overly cautious, inhibiting the 'unfettered exchange of ideas.' The court rejected an analogy to aeronautical charts, reasoning that charts are highly technical tools like a compass, whereas the mushroom encyclopedia is more like a book on how to use a compass—pure thought and expression. Similarly, under a negligence theory, the court declined to impose a duty on publishers to investigate the accuracy of their books' contents, as doing so would be prohibitively burdensome and would also chill speech.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent protecting publishers from liability for the factual content of the books they distribute, grounding this protection in First Amendment principles. It solidifies the legal distinction between tangible products and the intangible expression of ideas, making it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to sue publishers under theories of strict liability or negligence for injuries resulting from inaccurate information. The ruling effectively insulates publishers from a duty to fact-check, placing the onus of verification on authors and readers. Consequently, future claims against publishers for content-related harm are unlikely to succeed unless the publisher has explicitly guaranteed the text's accuracy.
Unlock the full brief for Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons