Reference no: EM133331036

In the case of Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, Richard Welge received permanent damage to his hand when he closed the plastic lid on a glass jar of Planters peanuts and the glass shattered and cut his hand. The peanuts were purchased at K-Mart and went from the store to the top of Welge's refrigerator where they were untouched except the two times Welge got peanuts from the jar. The first instance the lid went back fine and the second time Welge was injured. Welge brought charges against Planters, K-Mart and Brockway who manufactured the jar. Justice Posner used strict product liability to find the defendant liable for the damage caused to Welge's hand. Strict product liability requires that the plaintiff proves that the item was defective when they purchased it, that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous and that the product is what caused injury (Kubasek et al., 2019). Welge was able to prove that it was the product that injured his hand and since permanent damage was caused it can be concluded that it was unreasonably dangerous. Justice Godfrey used testimonies from Welge and the person he boarded with to determine that the jar did not become defective nor was it damaged from the time it was taken from the shelf at K-Mart until it was placed on the top of the refrigerator at Welge's home. He further determined that the jar was stored as one normally would store such an item and there was no need to take extra preventative measures to protect the item from damage. Since the likelihood that the jar was damaged after the item was purchased was very low, Justice Posner deemed the defect existed prior to purchase and stated K-Mart was the tortfeasor. Product liability law applies to sellers even when there was no fault on their end for not identifying the defect (Kubasek et al., 2019).

I agree with the decision that the product damaged Welge's hand and that there clearly was some sort of defect that caused the jar to shatter like that. However, I was surprised to learn in this chapter that sellers can be held liable for the products that they sell and K-Mart was deemed the tortfeasor. It's hard to believe that stores like Target and Walmart that carry tons of items can be held liable for damages that are caused to their customers by defective items. What I would have expected would be that Planters was held liable and they would go after Brockway for creating a faulty glass jar.

I was curious to see if other product liability cases had been brought against Target and Walmart and found a case against Walmart regarding a defective bike pedal (Walmart hit with products liability suit over allegedly defective bike pedal, 2021) and a case against Target for injuries a child sustained using a potty-training seat (Murphy, 2022). While I was initially surprised that the seller of items can be held liable, perhaps it encourages sellers to procure reliable items of higher quality which in the end keeps everyone safer. I would also imagine that the sellers attempt to recoup damages from the manufacturers of the items.

Question:

What are the judge's reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court?