Product Liability. New England Ecological Development, Inc (NEED), a recycling station in Rhode Island, needed a conveyor belt system and gave the specifications to Colmar Belting Co Colmar did not design or make belts but distributed the component

Question

parts. For this system, Emerson Power Transmission Corp (EPT) manufactured the wing pulley, a component of the nip point (the point at which a belt moves over the stationary part of the system). Kenneth Butler, a welder, assembled the system with assistance from Colmar. Neither Colmar nor EPT recommended the use of a protective shield to guard the nip point, and as finally built, NEED's system did not have a shield. Later, as Americo Buonanno, a NEED employee, was clearing debris from the belt, his arm was pulled into the nip point. The arm was severely crushed and later amputated at the elbow. Buonanno filed a suit in a Rhode Island state court against Colmar and EPT, alleging in part strict liability. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that as sellers of component parts, they had no duty to ensure the proper design of the final product. On what grounds might the court deny the motion?

Answer 1

Product liability
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Buonanno appealed. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for a trial. The state supreme court held that a manufacturer or seller of a component part of a defective final product may be liable to the ultimate user. The court cited the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. Regarding Colmar, there may be liability if there was "substantial participation" on its part "in the integration of the component into the design of the product," the "integration" causes the product to be defective, and the defect causes harm. Here, Colmar selected and provided the components, and assisted Butler in building the system. The court concluded that "these facts . . . may create a reasonable inference that Colmar ‘substantially participated' in the design of the conveyor belt system, thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact." As for EPT, under the Restatement, there may be liability if "the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor," and "the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe." The court concluded that "a genuine issue of material fact may exist with respect to whether the pulley's design was defective as a result of EPT's failure to produce a reasonable alternative design that may have reduced or avoided the foreseeable risk of harm suffered by Buonanno, which would render the product defective." The court noted factors to consider during the trial, including the economic feasibility of the alternative design.