Notes and Comments

1.The court discusses competing lines of precedents.One group of cases suggested that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to ultimate purchasers only when the product was “inherently dangerous.” Some courts confined this classification to guns,poisons or other products whose normal function it was to injury or destroy.Other decisions suggested that a manufacturer would breach a duty of care to a foreseeable user of the product if the product was likely to cause injury if negligently made.

2.Inherently Dangerous Products.Buick was trying to show that the standard of liability should lie in the distinction of whether the product is “inherently”or “imminently” dangerous.What’s the difference between these two terms.A hand grenade,a piece of firearm or a bottle of poison may,by its appearance,be considered as inherently dangerous.A piece of plastic film,non-toxic and very soft,on the other hand,may appear in no way be said as a “thing of danger” when used to wrap food.However,if it is played with by a very young child and accidentally swallowed,it could suffocate the child.In that sense,couldn’t we say an “inherently safe” product may become more dangerous simply because of its disguise of safety,and therefore of less warning to its user? What more argument can you add to the analysis? Foreseeability? Reasonably prudent standard? Age?Intended target group of consumers?(https://www.daowen.com)