Home Table of Contents

AMI 1006 Products Liability—Negligence—Vendor's Duty to Inspect

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 1006
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
November 2021 Update
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil
Chapter 10. Products Liability
AMI 1006 Products Liability—Negligence—Vendor's Duty to Inspect
Ordinarily a seller does not have a duty to inspect a product for possible defects. If, however, a seller has reason to believe that the product is defective or is likely to have a defect which would make it dangerous when used for a purpose or in a manner which the seller should reasonably foresee, then the seller has a duty to make a reasonable inspection of the product to protect those [who will use it][and][who are in the area of its use] from unreasonable risk of harm. A violation of this duty is negligence.
NOTE ON USE
Use AMI 1007 in food or beverage cases.
COMMENT
In Ahrens v. Moore, 206 Ark. 1035, 178 S.W.2d 256 (1944), the court determined there were fact questions for the jury regarding the duty owed by a dealer who claimed to sell a new and experimental product not in general use, who may have had knowledge of the product's dangerous qualities based on experience unique to the dealer, and who made representations regarding the fitness and quality of the product. In Sinclair Refining Co. v. Henderson, 197 Ark. 319, 122 S.W.2d 580 (1938), the court applied this standard to the defendant seller.
For a general discussion of this proposition, see Green v. Equitable Powder Mfg. Co., 95 F.Supp. 127 (W.D. Ark. 1951). Even when such a duty is imposed, there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence on the part of the seller. See, e.g., Williams v. Oklahoma Tire & Supply Co., 85 F. Supp. 260 (W.D. Ark. 1949), rev'd on other grounds, 181 F.2d 675 (8th Cir. 1950).
End of Document