Traditional tort law principles provide that product manufacturers and sellers have a duty to warn of hidden risks that pose a danger to product users. As a corollary, courts generally hold that manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn consumers of obvious dangers inherent in the product.
Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases
Traditional tort law principles provide that product manufacturers and sellers have a duty to warn of hidden risks that pose a danger to product users. As a corollary, courts generally hold that manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn consumers of obvious dangers inherent in the product. Consequently, most judges have left to the jury the question of whether the danger of injury from a product is obvious. Against this backdrop, a recent decision has cast doubt on the accepted notion that obviousness is necessarily a question for the jury. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Michigan held in <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 717 N.W.2d 855, <i>reh'g denied</i>, 720 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 2006) that, as a matter of law, hair oil posed an open and obvious danger to consumers that negated any duty to warn that the product could kill if ingested or inhaled.
By
James H. Rotondo, Robert E. Koosa, and James E. HennesseyThis premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
