WPI 110.03.01 Manufacturer's Duty to Provide Warnings or Instructions After the Product Was...
6 WAPRAC WPI 110.03.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 110.03.01 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part IX. Particularized Standards of Conduct
Chapter 110. Product Liability
WPI 110.03.01 Manufacturer's Duty to Provide Warnings or Instructions After the Product Was Manufactured
A manufacturer has a duty to supply products that are reasonably safe.
A product may be not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided after the product was manufactured.
A product is not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided after the product was manufactured if:
(1) A manufacturer learned, or if a reasonably prudent manufacturer should have learned, about a danger connected with the product after it was manufactured;
(2) Without adequate warnings or instructions, the product was unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by an ordinary user; and
(3) The manufacturer failed to issue warnings or instructions concerning the danger in the manner that a reasonably prudent manufacturer would act in the same or similar circumstances.
The duty to issue warnings or instructions is satisfied if the manufacturer exercises reasonable care to inform product users.
In determining whether a product was unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by an ordinary user, you should consider the following:
(1) the relative cost of the product;
(2) the seriousness of the potential harm from the claimed defect;
(3) the cost and feasibility of eliminating or minimizing the risk; and
(4) such [other] factors as the nature of the product and the claimed defect indicate are appropriate.
If you find the product was not reasonably safe because the manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings or instructions after the product was manufactured and this was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's [injury] [and] [or] [damage], then the manufacturer is [subject to liability] [at fault].
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction if there is a claim against a manufacturer that the product was not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided after the product was manufactured.
Use bracketed material as applicable. The bracketed “at fault” language is intended to be used in conjunction with WPI 110.31.01.02 (defining “fault”) and with WPI 110.31.01.01 (the corresponding special verdict form) for cases involving mixed standards of care (e.g., negligence and strict liability); see the Notes on Use and Comments for WPI 110.31.01.01 (the corresponding special verdict form) and WPI 110.31.01.02 (defining “fault”).
Use WPI 110.04 (Seller—Manufacturer—Defined) with this instruction.
Use WPI 10.01 (Negligence—Adult—Definition) with this instruction.
Use either WPI 110.21.02 (Burden of Proof—Duty to Provide Warnings After the Product was Manufactured—No Affirmative Defense) or WPI 110.23.02 (Burden of Proof—Duty to Provide Warnings After the Product Was Manufactured—Assumption of Risk or Contributory Negligence) with this instruction.
In drug cases, the phrase “ordinary physician user” should be substituted for “ordinary user.” See the Comment to WPI 110.03 (Manufacturer's Duty to Provide Warnings or Instructions With Product).
COMMENT
RCW 7.72.030(1)(c).
RCW 7.72.030(1) states in part that a “product manufacturer is subject to liability to a claimant if the claimant's harm was proximately caused by the negligence of the manufacturer in that the product … was not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.”
RCW 7.72.030(1)(c) provides that:
Subsection (1)(c) incorporates principles of traditional negligence rather than strict liability. See Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wn.2d 747, 818 P.2d 1337 (1991); Falk v. Keene, 113 Wn.2d 645, 782 P.2d 974 (1989); Lundberg v. All-Pure Chem. Co., 55 Wn.App. 181, 777 P.2d 15 (1989).
In a case involving a claim that arose before the effective date of RCW 7.72.030(1), the court held that if a person's susceptibility to the danger of a product continues after that person's direct exposure to the product has ceased, the manufacturer still has a duty after exposure to exercise reasonable care to warn the person of known dangers, if the warning could help to prevent or lessen the harm. Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 235, 744 P.2d 605 (1987).
For additional discussion of issues relating to warnings, see the Comment to WPI 110.03 (Manufacturer's Duty to Provide Warnings or Instructions with Product).
Comment k products—Learned intermediary doctrine. See discussion in the Comment to WPI 110.03 (Manufacturer's Duty to Provide Warnings or Instructions with Product). Comment k products are usually prescription drug or medical products. If given, WPI 110.03 (Manufacturer's Duty to Provide Warnings or Instructions with Product) and WPI 110.03.01 should be modified in most comment k cases by replacing “ordinary user” with “ordinary [physician] [health care provider] user.”
[Current as of December 2020.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |