Chapter 4 Products Liability

• Library: The South Carolina Law of Torts (SCBar) (2023 Ed.)

CHAPTER 4 PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Products liability law has rapidly increased in social, economic, and legal importance in South Carolina since the 1960s. This area of law centers upon liability for harm to people or property caused by the use of or exposure to products.¹ Doctrinal development in this area has been based to a substantial degree on the view that the cost of injuries caused by product defects should be imposed on manufacturers and sellers of the products.² This imposition was implemented in large part by the abrogation of the requirement of privity of contract and by the imposition of liability without fault,³ either through strict liability in tort⁴ or through warranty doctrine.⁵ The trend in products liability has been in the direction of adopting a more fault-based approach, and the Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts: Products Liability reflects this shift.⁶

South Carolina followed this pattern to allocating the cost of product-caused injuries. Initially, the South Carolina courts and legislature were in the "vanguard of consumer protection."⁷ In 1976, Lane v. Trenholm Building Co.⁸ noted:

When a product is sold, the parties contemplate an expected use of the product. One of the primary objectives of the law of contracts and sales is to carry out the reasonable expectations of the parties. To this end, the court in this State has consistently rejected caveat emptor and adopted the civil law rule of caveat venditor as part of the common law of South Carolina . . . .

Caveat venditor is premised upon the just philosophy that a "sound price warrants a sound commodity". . . . Perhaps the greatest testimonial to the wisdom of the rule has been the adoption of the Uniform Sales Act and the subsequent enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code by every common law state, S.C. Code § 102.-314 [now § 36-2-314] . . . .

Disparity in the law should be founded upon just reason and not the result of adherence to stale principles which do not comport with current social conditions. . . . [T]he General Assembly also recognized the clear drift of the common law in this State when it codified Restatement of Torts (2) Section 402A, which imposes strict liability in tort upon the suppliers of defective products.

More recent cases have limited consumer protection—for example by adopting the approach of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability⁹ for design defect claims and by limiting recovery for economic loss.¹⁰

The discussion of products...