was not liable under product liability law for the injury to Clark.
There were several key factors in this case including: (1) the individual who shot the paintball gun (Rico) testified that the product did not malfunction when he fired it. (2) Clark was aware that protective eyewear was available to use, but he decided not to wear any; (3) Clark knew beforehand that there was danger involved in what he was doing since he said it was “common sense” for people not to shoot anyone in the face with a paintball gun and; (4) the product did what is was expected to do under the circumstances.
Product liability can be based on the theories of negligence, misrepresentation, and strict liability. In regards negligence, the manufacturer would have to fail to exercise ‘due care’ to ensure the product is safe. This would include the design, manufacturing, and inspection. This did not happen or could be proved as shown primarily by Rico’s testimony that the gun did not malfunction.
Misrepresentation can happen if intentional mislabeling of packages happens or if product defects are concealed. Neither of these things happened with Brass Eagle and the Supreme Court case details mentioned how a warning label showing the dangers was in the package itself.
The requirements for Strict product liability under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is federal law that can be summarized as: (1) the product must have been in defective condition when sold; (2) the defendant must have been in the business of selling the product; (3) the product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of it’s defective condition; (4) the plaintiff must incur physical harm; (5) the defective condition must by the proximate cause of the injury; and (6) the goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to when the damage occurred.
Clark could not prove that the product itself was