Godoy v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityDefective designComponent partsstrict liabilitynegligencedesign defectwhite lead carbonate

Facts

Godoy alleged that he suffered lead poisoning by ingesting white lead carbonate derived from painted surfaces, paint chips, paint flakes, and dust in a rented apartment. He sued manufacturers of white-lead-carbonate pigment used by paint companies to make the paint that allegedly injured him. The complaint alleged that defendants knew white lead carbonate was dangerous when used in paint and falsely represented products containing it as safe, but it did not allege that defendants substantially participated in paint manufacturers' formulation of the paint. Godoy's failure-to-warn claim remained pending; only his strict-liability and negligence defective-design claims were dismissed.

Issue

Whether a complaint states strict-liability and negligence defective-design claims against manufacturers of white-lead-carbonate pigment when the alleged defect is inherent in the product itself and any proposed alternative design would create a different product rather than white-lead carbonate.

Rule

A product is not defectively designed, for either strict-liability or negligence purposes, when the complained-of feature is inherent in the nature of the product and there is no reasonable alternative design that would reduce or avoid the harm without changing the product into something else. For a component or raw-material supplier, liability for a defective end product does not arise merely because its component was integrated into another product; absent substantial participation in the integration, the component itself must be defective, and a component is not defectively designed if no alternative design exists for that product as such.

🔒

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 Milwaukee, Nora Vega became ill after inhaling dust from wall panels coated with a sealant made by Lakefront Coatings. She sued Prairie Mineral Labs, which supplied barium sulfate powder used in the sealant, alleging the powder was defectively designed because Lakefront could have used titanium dioxide instead; her complaint does not allege Prairie helped formulate the sealant.

Should Nora's defective-design claim against Prairie Mineral Labs survive a motion to dismiss?

Explanation. A component or raw material is not defectively designed when the complained-of feature is inherent in the nature of that product and the proposed 'alternative design' would make it something else entirely. Liability for a defective end product does not arise merely because a supplier's component was integrated into it; absent substantial participation in integration, the component itself must be defective. Here, substituting titanium dioxide would create a different substance, not a redesigned version of barium sulfate, and Nora did not allege substantial participation by Prairie. (Derived from Godoy v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (n.d.).)