23 Sw. L. J. 256 (1969)
Products Defective because of Inadequate Directions or Warnings

handle is hein.journals/smulr23 and id is 278 raw text is: PRODUCTS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE
DIRECTIONS OR WARNINGS
by
Dix W. Noel*
N RECENT suits for injuries from defective products, plaintiffs have
alleged a great variety of dangerous defects, and where negligence is
involved, many different kinds of careless conduct. In many of these suits,
however, the complaint has been that the product was not accompanied
either by adequate directions for use, or by sufficient warning of dangers
which might arise during some foreseeable handling of the product. The
advent of strict liability in many jurisdictions has not checked this trend,
for even where negligence is not required, it still is necessary to allege de-
fectiveness, and what often makes a product defective and unreasonably
dangerous is the lack of adequate warnings or directions for use.1 This
Article will concern the increased requirements in recent years with ref-
erence to warnings and directions, both in negligence and strict liability
cases. To place this development in the proper setting the present state of
general products law will be briefly indicated.
I. RECENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENTS IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY
It would be difficult to find an area of law expanding as rapidly as that
relating to consumer protection from defective products. One aspect of
this expansion relates to strict liability. After a period of doubt as to
whether negligence could be dispensed with in products cases, an increas-
ing number of jurisdictions have decided to accept the Restatement (Sec-
ond) of Torts' view that proof of negligence should not be required in
the situation described in section 402A.' Under that section a manufac-
turer or other person in the business of selling who permits a product to
leave his hands in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the
consumer or user may be liable to remote users even though he has used
all possible care in its preparation and sale.
* A.B., LL.B., Harvard University; M.A., Columbia University. Alumni Professor of Law,
University of Tennessee. This study has been assisted by a faculty research grant from the Uni-
versity of Tennessee.
'The latest comprehensive article on this matter was written in 1955, and deals only with
negligence. Dillard & Hart, Products Liability: Directions for Use and the Duty To Warn, 41 VA.
L. REV. 145 (1955). This outstanding Article has been cited in hundreds of decisions.
'2 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§ 402A, 402B (1965).
' Some of the decisions most recently expressing approval of the Restatement view are: O.S.
Stapley Co. v. Miller, 447 P.2d 248 (Ariz. App. 1968); Rosignol v. Danbury School of Aeronau-
tics, Inc., 154 Conn. 549, 227 A.2d 418 (1967); Dealer's Transp. Co. v. Battery Distrib. Co.,
402 S.W.2d 441 (Ky. 1966); McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 154 N.W.2d 488
(1967); State Stove Mfg. Corp. v. Hodges, 189 So. 2d 113 (Miss. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S.
912 (1967); Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 220 A.2d 853 (1966); Olney v. Beaman Bottling Co.,
220 Tenn. 459, 418 S.W.2d 430 (1967); Ford Motor Co. v. Lonon, 217 Tenn. 400, 398 S.W.2d
240 (1966); McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1967); Shamrock Fuel &
Oil Sales Co. v. Tunks, 406 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. 1966); Dippel v. Sciano, 37 Wis. 2d 443, 155
N.W.2d 55 (1967); cf. Schenfeld v. Norton Co., 391 F.2d 420 (10th Cir. 1968) (applying
Colorado law).

What Is HeinOnline?

With comprehensive coverage of government documents and more than 2,400 journals from inception on hundreds of subjects such as political science, criminal justice, and human rights, HeinOnline is an affordable option for colleges and universities. Documents have the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?