23.11 What Types of Products?

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

23.11 What Types of Products? An implicit element of proof for a product liability action is for the plaintiff to prove that the object or instrumentality claimed to be defective is a “product” as defined under Restatement § 402A , legislation or case law.¹⁷³ Whether an object or instrumentality is a “product” is a question of law.¹⁷⁴ A.R.S. § 12-681(4) defines “product” as “the individual product or any component part of the product that is the subject of a product liability action.”

In evaluating whether an item is a “product” capable of subjecting its seller or manufacturer to a product liability claim, courts examine “the policy reasons underlying the strict liability doctrine to see if it should be applied” to the subject item.¹⁷⁵ These public policy reasons include: the social policy of transferring the costs from the victims of accidents attributable to defectively dangerous products to sellers and manufacturers who, in turn, can pass those costs on to purchasers; incentivizing manufacturers to create safer products; promoting accident prevention; and placing the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption on those who market them and can protect themselves through insurance and indemnity agreements. Another key criterion is the unavailability of an adequate remedy for the injured plaintiff under a normal negligence regime.¹⁷⁶ Generally, items produced by a mass-production process will qualify as “products.”¹⁷⁷ The only reported Arizona decision addressing whether an item was properly considered a “product” capable of imposing strict liability found that an in-ground pool was not a “product” in light of the policy reasons underlying Arizona’s strict product liability jurisprudence.¹⁷⁸

Courts have found that vehicles,¹⁷⁹ vehicle components,¹⁸⁰ power tools,¹⁸¹ feed,¹⁸² food,¹⁸³ industrial equipment,¹⁸⁴golf carts,¹⁸⁵ medical devices,¹⁸⁶ bungee cords,¹⁸⁷ steam turbines,¹⁸⁸ drug products,¹⁸⁹ televisions,¹⁹⁰ propane tanks,¹⁹¹ and many other items are all “products” capable of subjecting a seller or manufacturer to liability for injuries caused by them.

--------

Notes:

^[173] Menendez v. Paddock Pool Constr. Co., 172 Ariz. 258, 262, 836 P.2d 968, 972 (App. 1991).

^[174]See id.

^[175]Id. at 264, 836 P.2d at 974.

^[176]Id.; seealso Jordan, 135 Ariz. at 315, 660 P.2d at 1242.

^[177] Menendez, 172 Ariz. at 267, 836 P.2d at 977.

^[178]Id.

^[179] Rossell v. Volkswagon of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 709 P.2d 517 (1985); Zuern, 188 Ariz. at...