Disentangling DeVries: A Manufacturer's Duty to Warn against the Dangers of Third-Party Products

• Author: David Judd
• Position: J.D./D.C.L., 2021. Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
• Pages: 222-276

Louisiana Law Review Louisiana Law Review

Volume 81

Number 1

Fall 2020

Article 11

12-11-2020

Disentangling DeVries: A Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn against the Disentangling DeVries: A Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn against the

Dangers of Third-Party Products Dangers of Third-Party Products

David Judd

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev

Repository Citation Repository Citation

David Judd,

Disentangling DeVries: A Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn against the Dangers of Third-Party

Products

, 81 La. L. Rev. (2020)

Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol81/iss1/11

This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital

Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital

Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.

348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 221348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 221 12/2/20 7:03 AM12/2/20 7:03 AM

Disentangling DeVries: A Manufacturer’s Duty to

Warn against the Dangers of Third-Party Products

David Judd*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.................................................................................. 218

I. Development of the Third-Party Duty to Warn............................ 222

A. History of the Duty to Warn .................................................. 222

B. The Third-Party Duty to Warn............................................... 228

1. Products Used in Conjunction with One Another........... 229

2. Component Parts ............................................................. 233

3. Replacement Parts........................................................... 235

4. Bare-Metal Products........................................................ 237

C. State Statutes and the Third-Party Duty to Warn................... 239

II. Three Different Approaches to the

Third-Party Duty to Warn ............................................................ 241

A. The Bare-Metal Approach:

No Third-Party Duty to Warn................................................ 241

B. The Foreseeability Approach:

The Third-Party Duty to Warn Subsumed

by the Generic Duty to Warn................................................. 244

C. The Middle-Ground Approach:

A Conditional Duty to Warn about

Third-Party Products.............................................................. 247

1. DeVries and the Maritime Context.................................. 247

2. Non-Maritime Contexts................................................... 250

III. Courts Should Adopt a Conditional

Third-Party Duty to Warn ............................................................ 251

A. The Bare-Metal Defense: Less Than

Bare-Minimum Relief............................................................ 251

Copyright 2020, by DAVID JUDD.

* J.D./D.C.L., 2021. Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.

I want to thank a number of individuals for providing me with tremendous support

while writing this Comment. First, President Tom Galligan, Jr., for his invaluable

insights and willingness to challenge my claims. Next, to my family, especially my

parents, for their love and encouragement. Finally, to all those who contributed in

their own way, from editors to friends and loved ones.

348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 222348056-LSU_81-1_Text.indd 222 12/2/20 7:03 AM12/2/20 7:03 AM

218 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 81

B. The Foreseeability Approach: Visibly Excessive.................. 257

C. The Inevitability Standard: Bound to Be Right ..................... 262

1. Condition 1: Inevitability ................................................ 263

2. Condition 2: Actual or Presumed

Knowledge of Danger ..................................................... 266

3. Condition 3: Actual or Presumed Knowledge

of Anticipation of Danger ............................................... 267

Conclusion.................................................................................... 270

INTRODUCTION

At 24 years old, Timothy finally caught a break.1 After two years of

rejections from veterinary schools, Timothy was admitted to the Doctor of

Veterinary Medicine program at a university in a nearby state.2 Of course,

the prospect of hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans covering

Timothy’s out-of-state tuition tempered his excitement.3 Timothy,

however, received additional good news soon after starting his first

semester: his sister-in-law had given birth. As a new uncle, Timothy

wanted nothing more than to meet his nephew back home. Encouraged by

decent grades, Timothy was confident he could afford a small break from

his incessant studies to return home.

While driving home, Timothy’s car violently swerved off the rural

highway and crashed into a tree. The crushing impact broke his back,

leaving him paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life.

Timothy’s meager insurance policy only covered a fraction of his medical

expenses, and without some form of financial recovery, Timothy could not

afford to finish veterinary school. A post-crash analysis revealed that the

car’s multipiece wheel was incompatible with the tire surrounding it,

1. The defective product in this hypothetical scenario comes from the facts

of Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber

Co., 591 N.E.2d 222 (N.Y. 1992).

2. See Lori Hehn, How Hard is it to Get Into Veterinary School? A Look at

the Acceptance Rate, VETPREP BLOG (Sept. 10, 2019, 5:29 PM), https://blog.vet

prep.com/how-hard-is-it-to-get-into-veterinary-school-a-look-at-acceptance-the-

rate (estimating national average acceptance rate of veterinary schools at 11.7%)

[https://perma.cc/2KQ3-26M9].

3. See Media Frequently Asked Questions, ASS’N AM. VETERINARY MED.

CS., https://www.aavmc.org/media-faqs.aspx (last visited Sept. 12, 2019)

(estimating median annual tuition for out-of-state veterinary students at $50,123

for four-year programs) [https://perma.cc/M5VT-ZE4J].