NCJ Number
47504
Journal
Ohio State Law Journal Volume: 38 Issue: 4 Dated: (1977) Pages: 883-902
Date Published
1978
Length
10 pages
Annotation
THE ALASKAN SUPREME COURT BECAME THE FIRST JURISDICTION TO APPLY A SYSTEM OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY SUIT. THIS CASE IS EXAMINED IN DETAIL AND ITS IMPLICATIONS DISCUSSED.
Abstract
THE GROWTH OF STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY AS A TORT ACTION HAS GIVEN INJURED CONSUMERS A POWERFUL WEAPON AGAINST MANUFACTURERS AND SELLERS OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS. IN THE CASE OF BUTAUD V. SUBURBAN MARINE AND SPORTING GOODS, INC., HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA ADDED THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE TO THE DOCTRINE OF PRODUCT LIABILITY. THIS GIVES CONSUMERS A BASIS FOR ACTION EVEN IF THE PRODUCT ITSELF IS NOT COMPLETELY TO BLAME FOR THE INJURY. IN THIS CASE, BUTAUD BOUGHT A SNOWMOBILE WHICH HE USED FOR RACING. THE MODEL WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR RACING AND A CONVERTER KIT WAS NEEDED TO EQUIP IT FOR THIS USE. A PULLEY GUARD SHATTERED, INFLICTING AN EYE INJURY. BUTAUD CLAIMED THE GUARD WAS DEFECTIVE. SUBURBAN MARINE CLAIMED HE HAD NOT FOLLOWED MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS AND HAD MISUSED THE MACHINE. BY MERGING THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND PRODUCT LIABILITY, THE SUPREME COURT FOUND SUBURBAN MARINE PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EYE INJURY AND AWARDED DAMAGES ACCORDINGLY. THE MEANING OF THIS RULING IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CASES IS DISCUSSED. IF LEGAL THEORY IS STRICTLY FOLLOWED, THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE INCOMPATIBLE. THE COURT ACTUALLY USED A 'COMPARATIVE CAUSATION' THEORY TO ALLOCATE DAMAGES IN WHAT IT BELIEVED TO BE A JUST MANNER. 'COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE' IS CALLED A MISUSE OF CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY. AS THIS ARTICLE WAS GOING TO PRESS IN 1977, CALIFORNIA WAS USING SIMILAR REASONING IN A PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)