Will Florida subscribe to the component seller doctrine? "The Buck Stops Here" section 5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: products liability.

• Author: Ward, Joseph J.

The component seller doctrine, embraced by [section]5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (hereinafter "[section]5" or "Third Restatement"), contemplates that the seller of a nondefective raw or component material, (2) which supplies the material to a manufacturer that combines it with other materials to produce a finished product, will not be held liable in strict liability for a defective finished product or for failure to warn of the dangers associated with the finished product. In other words, under [section]5, unless the seller of a nondefective component substantially participates in the integration of the component into an end product, liability arising from a defective end product generally will not attach to the component seller and the component seller does not have a duty to warn the end product consumer or intermediate manufacturer.

This article provides a brief background of the component seller doctrine and discusses [section]5 of the Third Restatement, including application of its underlying principles by Florida courts. The article continues by addressing potential arguments for and against [section]5, and concludes that the component seller doctrine of [section]5 should be adopted by the Florida courts and recognized in Florida jurisprudence as a legitimate ground for limiting the liability of component sellers, while ensuring that responsibility for defective or unreasonably dangerous end products is placed on those entities properly held accountable for such products. (3)

Background of the Component Seller Doctrine

Traditionally, there have been four general circumstances under which courts impose liability on the supplier of a component part: 1) where the component supplier also designs the ultimate product; 2) where the component supplier supplies a product that only has one use; 3) where the component has multiple uses, but is dangerous for most of those uses; and 4) where the component is produced pursuant to specific design criteria for use in the ultimate product, and the component seller knows that the design is unreasonably dangerous. (4) The component seller doctrine arose in response to the question concerning the circumstances in which a component seller should be held liable for a defective end product containing the component, as well as when the component seller has a duty to warn the consumer or manufacturer of the end product regarding the dangers associated with the use of the product.

An early manifestation of the component seller doctrine appeared in Mayberry v. Akron Rubber Machinery Corp., 483 F. Supp. 407 (N.D. Okla. 1979). In Mayberry, the Northern District of Oklahoma held that the defendant supplier of component parts of a rubber mixing mill was not liable to an employee who was injured while operating the mill. (5) In reaching its decision, the Mayberry court reasoned that because there was no evidence that the component seller helped construct the mill, integrate its parts into the mill, or that it had been furnished with the design plans for the mill, the component seller should not be deemed responsible for a defect in the finished mill. (6) A subsequent court succinctly stated the rationale for the component seller doctrine as follows:

[T]he duty to avoid injury to another which is reasonably foreseeable does not ... extend to the anticipation of how manufactured components not in and of themselves dangerous or defective can become potentially dangerous dependent upon the nature of their integration into a unit designed, assembled, installed, and sold by another. (7)

The component seller doctrine subsequently evolved as a recognition that many courts "have been reluctant to hold raw material or component sellers liable for failure to warn or to protect against flaws in the finished product." (8) As one commentator points out, courts have "regularly and consistently granted summary judgment for component suppliers where the component itself was not defective and where the suppliers really had no control over the design, end-use testing, or manufacture of the final product with respect to how that component was going to be incorporated." (9)

Section 5 of The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability

In recognition of the special considerations applicable to component sellers in products liability law, including that end product manufacturers may be more properly held accountable as experts regarding their finished products, the American Law Institute developed [section]5 of the Third Restatement. (10)

* Language and Commentary of [section] 5

Section 5 of the Third Restatement, entitled "Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor of Product Components for Harm Caused by Products Into Which Components are Integrated," states:

One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing product components who sells or distributes a component is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by a product into which the component is integrated if:

(a) the component is defective in itself, as defined in this chapter, and the defect causes the harm; or

(b)(1) the seller or distributor of the component substantially participates in the integration of the component into the design of the product; and

(b)(2) the integration of the component causes the product to be defective, as defined in this chapter; and

(b)(3) the defect in the product causes the harm. (11)

Although the text of [section] 5 identifies the circumstances under which a component seller can be held liable, the comments to [section] 5 provide the important caveat that "[a]s a general rule, component sellers should not be liable when the component itself is not defective." (12)

Defining "product components" as including "raw materials, bulk products, and other constituent products sold for integration into other products," (13) the comments further state that "component sellers who do not participate in the integration of the component into the design of the product should not be liable merely because the integration of the component causes the product to become dangerously defective." (14) In this way, [section] 5 recognizes that to impose a duty to warn on the component seller under such circumstances "would require the seller to develop expertise regarding a multitude of different end-products and to investigate the actual use of raw materials by manufacturers over whom the supplier has no control. Courts uniformly refuse to impose such an onerous duty to warn." (15)

Under [section] 5(b)(1), a component seller likely will be deemed to have reached the threshold for liability due to its "substantial participation" with the integration of the component into the end product if the component seller 1) designs the component according to a specific design for a designated use in the finished product, or assists the manufacturer in modifying the finished product's design to enable integration of the component; or 2) chooses which component would best meet the final...