Is a manufacturer strictly liable in tort to a consumer injured by a defective product, regardless of whether the consumer gave timely notice of breach of warranty or established an express warranty under the sales act?

William Greenman saw a Shopsmith, a combination power tool usable as a saw, drill, and wood lathe, demonstrated by a retailer and studied a brochure prepared by the manufacturer, Yuba Power Products, Inc. His wife bought the machine and gave it to him for Christmas in 1955. In 1957, Greenman bought the attachments needed to use the Shopsmith as a lathe and began turning a large piece of wood into a chalice. After he had worked on the wood several times without difficulty, the piece suddenly flew out of the machine and struck him on the forehead, causing serious injuries.

At trial, Greenman's expert witnesses testified that inadequate set screws held parts of the machine together, so normal vibration caused the tailstock of the lathe to move away from the wood, allowing it to fly out. They testified that more positive fastening methods existed that would have prevented the accident. The manufacturer's brochure stated that the Shopsmith had rugged construction providing rigid support and that every component had positive locks that held adjustments. About 10 1/2 months after the accident, Greenman gave the retailer and manufacturer written notice of claimed breaches of warranty and filed suit.

Greenman sued the retailer and the manufacturer for damages, alleging breaches of warranties and negligence. After a jury trial, the trial court ruled that no evidence showed the retailer was negligent or breached any express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for breach of any implied warranty. It submitted to the jury only the implied warranty claim against the retailer and the negligence and express warranty claims against the manufacturer. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer and against Greenman, and for Greenman against the manufacturer in the amount of $65,000. The trial court denied the manufacturer's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict. Both the manufacturer and Greenman appealed to the California Supreme Court, with Greenman seeking reversal of the judgment for the retailer only if the judgment against the manufacturer was reversed.

(Traynor, J.)

Yes. A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article it places on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. The judgment against the manufacturer is affirmed.

The manufacturer argued that Greenman failed to give timely notice of breach of warranty under Civil Code section 1769. That section is part of the Uniform Sales Act and governs rights between parties to a contract of sale. It does not apply to warranties arising independently of a contract between the parties. Applying the notice rule to an injured consumer suing a remote manufacturer would be a booby-trap for the unwary, since a consumer is rarely steeped in the business practice that justifies the rule and is unlikely to think of giving notice to one with whom he has had no dealings. Prosser, Strict Liability to the Consumer, 69 Yale L.J. 1099, 1130. Earlier cases that assumed a notice requirement did not consider this distinction and are not authority.

Strict liability, first recognized for unwholesome food, has been extended to products that create equal or greater hazards if defective. Although such liability was often framed as express or implied warranty, abandonment of privity, recognition that the liability is imposed by law rather than assumed by agreement, and refusal to let manufacturers define the scope of their own responsibility show that it is governed by strict tort law, not contract warranty law. Sales-act rules cannot govern this liability unless they serve its purposes.

The purpose of strict liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put them on the market rather than by injured persons powerless to protect themselves. Remedies for injured consumers should not depend on the intricacies of sales law. Greenman therefore needed to prove only that he was injured while using the Shopsmith as intended because of a defect in design and manufacture of which he was unaware that made it unsafe for its intended use. He did so. The refused jury instructions were either adequately covered or unsupported by the evidence.