Strict Products Liability: Is the Defendant Providing a Product or a Service?

As a general rule, strict products liability applies to manufacturers, retailers, distributors, lessors, and sellers of a product. However, on occasions there may be a gray area as to whether a defendant falls within the chain of distribution of the product. Courts have been unwilling to extend the doctrine of strict liability to transactions whose primary objective is obtaining services. (Piersen v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 344.

The case of Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4^th 248 is an illustrative example. In Ferrari, the Plaintiff participated in a commercial raft trip conducted by defendant Grand Canyon Dories (hereafter referred to as “GCD”). Rubber rafts equipped with a metal frame were used on the trip as a means of transportation. GCD did not manufacture the rubber raft. While on the raft, Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff struck her head on the metal frame of the raft. Plaintiff contended that the raft was a product and therefore claimed GCD was subject to strict liability of the product as licensors of the raft.

The Ferrari court explained the example of an airline passenger who is injured because of a defect in the aircraft. “The manufacturer’s role is that a provider of a product, the airplane. On the other hand, the airline operating the plane would be primarily involved in providing a service, i.e., transportation. The airline is itself the end user of the product and imposition of strict liability would be inappropriate.” (citing McGee v. Cessna Aircraft Co., (1978)82 Cal.App.3d 1005.) However, on the other hand the Ferrari court used provided a contrary example of a plaintiff that is injured due to an alleged defective washing machine at a commercial laundromat. “In that case, the court held the operator strictly liable explaining: ‘Although respondent is not engaged in the distribution of the product, in the same manner as a manufacturer, retailer or lessor, he does provide the product to the public for use by the public use, and consequently does play more than a random and accidental role in the overall marketing enterprise of the product in question.’” (citing and quoting from Garcia v. Halsett (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 319, 326.)

Based upon these principles, the Ferrari court concluded that GCD did not provide plaintiff with a raft for her use but rather GCD provided a service, a recreational raft for transportation. Use of the raft was merely incidental to the service and therefore the law of strict liability did not apply. Ferrari at 259.

In summary, in evaluating whether a defendant may be subject to strict products liability where it is unclear on its face whether the defendant is providing a product or a service, one must look at the circumstances to see whether the subject product is merely incidental to the service provided and whether or not the defendant had any involvement in regard to any overall marketing enterprise of the product.