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.¹⁷⁶ Whether an object or instrumentality is a “product” is a question of law.¹⁷⁷ 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.¹⁷⁸ 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.¹⁷⁹ Generally, items produced by a mass-production process will qualify as “products.”¹⁸⁰ 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.¹⁸¹

Courts have found that vehicles,¹⁸² vehicle components,¹⁸³ power tools,¹⁸⁴ feed,¹⁸⁵ food,¹⁸⁶ industrial equipment,¹⁸⁷golf carts,¹⁸⁸ medical devices,¹⁸⁹ bungee cords,¹⁹⁰ steam turbines,¹⁹¹ drug products,¹⁹² televisions,¹⁹³ propane tanks,¹⁹⁴ and many other items are all “products” capable of subjecting a seller or manufacturer to liability for injuries caused by them.

--------

Notes:

^[176] Menendez v. Paddock Pool Constr. Co., 172 Ariz. 258, 262, 836 P.2d 968, 972 (App. 1991).

^[177] See id.

^[178] Id. at 264, 836 P.2d at 974.

^[179] Id.; see also Jordan, 135 Ariz. at 315, 660 P.2d at 1242.

^[180] Menendez, 172 Ariz. at 267, 836 P.2d at 977.

^[181] Id.

^[182] Rossell v. Volkswagon of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 709 P.2d 517 (1985); Zuern, 188 Ariz. at...