EveryBody's Guide to the Law

with the Acme label (made by Fashion, Inc.) and are hurt when an errant cigarette touches
the sweater and it goes up instantly in flames. Is Acme strictly liable to you because the
sweater was not sufficiently fire-retardant, even though Fashion, Inc., not Acme, actually
made the sweater? Yes. A company that puts its label on a product made by another and markets
it as its own is deemed a manufacturer. Some department stores, for example, put their
own names on tools, appliances, and clothes made by other companies. When they do, they
are liable as if they had made the products themselves. Would Fashion, Inc., the actual makers
of the defective sweater, also be liable for your injuries? That depends on the type of defect
and Fashion, Inc.’s involvement. If it is a manufacturing defect—the wrong material was used,
or the fabric was doused with some highly flammable liquid—then Fashion, Inc. is jointly
liable with Acme Department Store. But if Acme furnished the specifications for the product,
and Fashion, Inc., made it according to the designs, Fashion, Inc., may not necessarily be
strictly liable. Fashion, Inc., would be liable if the design was clearly dangerous and it did not
eliminate the danger or put an adequate warning to consumers on the product.
Limitations on the Manufacturer’s Liability
If you are injured by a defective product, there are several factors that can relieve the manufacturer
or seller of liability in whole or in part. One restriction is that the product must reach
the consumer in substantially the same condition as it left the factory. If the product was
altered significantly by a supplier, seller, or the consumer himself, the manufacturer ordinarily
is not strictly liable if the injury is attributable to the change. This rule does not apply to products
that require some alteration after they leave the factory so they can be used, however—in
particular, products that you must put together before you can use them. Also, the manufacturer
remains liable if the alteration had nothing to do with the cause of the injury.
Suppose the head on your new hammer is loose and flies off while you’re using it, hitting
you in the face and knocking out an eye. Whether the manufacturer is liable for your injuries
depends on whether you knew the head was loose before you used it. If you didn’t know it was
loose, you can collect damages from the manufacturer, even if an inspection of the hammer
before you used it would have revealed the defect. But if you realized the head was loose and
still went ahead and used the hammer, you may be barred from suing the manufacturer because
you assumed the risk that the head could come off.
Now suppose that you are an employee and you realize that the machine you work with is
defective. You inform your boss that the machine is dangerous and that you don’t want to use
it. Your boss tells you that if you don’t get back to work on it immediately, you’ll be fired on the
spot. You go back to the machine and twenty minutes later are hurt. Is the machine’s manufacturer
off the hook because you assumed the risk that the defective machine could hurt you?
At one time you would have been barred from recovering your damages from the manufacturer.
Today, though, many courts recognize that employees who use machines may be doing
316 Everybody’s Guide to the Law