Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arizona · Torts

TortsProducts LiabilityDesign DefectStrict LiabilityNegligencedesign defectstrict liabilitynegligent design

Facts

Defendant manufactured a paper shredder and belt conveyor system used in waste paper recycling. The machine had no mechanical guards on the nip points at the rollers. Plaintiff, an employee of the machine's owner, was instructed to remove paper wedged in a nip point; his arm was pulled into the nip point and torn off. He alleged the machine was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it was designed and distributed without safety guards that would have prevented the injury.

Issue

In a design defect case, does use of a risk/benefit analysis transform a strict liability claim into a negligence claim, so that the jury may be instructed only on a combined negligence-style theory? Also, did the trial court err by refusing plaintiff's separate strict liability and negligence instructions and instead giving a hybrid instruction focused on the manufacturer's reasonableness?

Rule

In Arizona design defect cases, the consumer expectation test should be used when an ordinary consumer can form an expectation about the product's safety. If that test is inapplicable or uncertain, the jury may determine whether the product was unreasonably dangerous under the Byrns risk/benefit factors, and use of that analysis does not abolish or transform strict liability into negligence. The distinction is temporal and conceptual: negligence evaluates the manufacturer's conduct based on knowledge available at the time of design or manufacture, while strict liability imputes to the manufacturer knowledge of the danger in fact as revealed by the accident and trial and asks whether a reasonable manufacturer with that knowledge would have marketed the product in that condition.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Loma Vista Home Tools sells a countertop blender with exposed rotating blades accessible through a wide opening while the machine is running. Nina Flores is injured when she uses the blender in an ordinary way to add fruit during operation. At trial, jurors can easily understand what an ordinary household user would expect about blade exposure.

Which design-defect instruction is most appropriate on Nina's strict liability claim?

Explanation. When ordinary consumers can form expectations about the product's safety, the consumer expectation test should be used. The majority explained that this test remains appropriate in at least some design-defect cases, even though it may fail in more technical settings. Use of design-defect analysis does not automatically convert the case into negligence. (Derived from Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. (n.d.).)