Understanding Strict Product Liability in New Mexico

Strict product liability holds manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers accountable for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of negligence. This doctrine aims to protect consumers by allowing recovery for harm caused by unreasonably dangerous products due to design defects, manufacturing flaws, or inadequate warnings. Liability ensures that the cost of injuries is borne by those best positioned to prevent defects and distribute risk—sellers and manufacturers.

Purpose of Strict Product Liability Claims

“New Mexico recognizes the doctrine of strict products liability.” (See Trujillo v. Berry, (1987)106 N.M. 86, 88; Stang v. Hertz Corp. (1972) 83 N.M. 730, 497 P.2d 732.)

“The purpose behind strict products liability . . . is to allow an injured consumer to recover against a seller or manufacturer without the requirement of proving ordinary negligence.” (See Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1995) 120 N.M. 372, 377; Aalco Mfg. Co. v. City of Espanola (1980) 95 N.M. 66, 67, 618 P.2d 1230, 1231.)

“This purpose is accomplished by imputing liability for an injury caused by a product to the seller of the product, with or without the presence of negligence on his part.” (See Trujillo v. Berry (1987) 106 N.M. 86, 88; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965).)

"This is because`[i]n some cases the retailer may be the only member of that enterprise reasonably available to the injured plaintiff. Extending strict liability to non-negligent retailers provides two sources from which the injured consumer can obtain relief: the retailer and the manufacturer, and the former may seek indemnification from the latter for any loss he may suffer. Strict products liability does not, however, preclude liability against a retailer based upon the alternative ground of negligence of the seller where such negligence can be proved.” (See id; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Company (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 899, 391 P.2d 168, 171 (1964); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment a (1965).)

“The doctrine of strict liability in tort was evolved to place liability on the manufacturer of the defective product as the party primarily responsible for the injury. This liability has been extended to the wholesalers and retailers of the defective product.” (See Aalco Mfg. Co. v. City of Espanola (1980) 95 N.M. 66, 67; Stang v. Hertz Corporation (1972) 83 N.M. 730. 497 P.2d 732.)

Prima Facie Case for Strict Product Liability Claims

“The liability of a manufacturer may be established by: [S]howing a product is defective, though faultlessly manufactured, if it is unreasonably dangerous when placed in the hands of the ultimate user by a manufacturer without giving adequate warnings concerning the manner in which to safely use it.” (See Jones v. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co. (1983) 100 N.M. 268, 284; Haugen v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (1976) 15 Wn. App. 379.)

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review for Strict Product Liability Claims

“Whether plaintiff succeeds in the proof of her strict products liability claim is a matter for the trial court to determine.” (See Vigil v. Arzola (1983) 102 N.M. 682, 699 P.2d 613; Trujillo v. Berry (1987) 106 N.M. 86, 89.)

“A product is defective if its condition or the manner of its use creates an unreasonable risk of injury and was the proximate cause of injury. The plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence.” (See Salinas v. John Deere Co., Inc. (1985) 103 N.M. 336, 341; Springer Corp. v. Dallas Mavis Forwarding Co. (1976) 90 N.M. 58, 559 P.2d 846.)

“The question of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous ordinarily is a question for the jury.” (See id; Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1979) 35 Conn. Sup. 687, 406 A.2d 1254.)

“The question on appeal is whether there was evidence from which the jury might conclude that there was a condition of the combine or manner of its use that created an unreasonable risk of injury.” (See id; Cf. Flanary v. Transport Trucking Stop (1968) 78 N.M. 797, 438 P.2d 637.)

“The existence and scope of any duty constitutes a question of law.” (See Parker v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. (1995) 121 N.M. 120, 125; Saiz v. Belen Sch. Dist. (1992) 113 N.M. 387, 398, 827 P.2d 102, 113; Calkins v. Cox Estates (1990) 110 N.M. 59, 62-63, 792 P.2d 36, 39-40; Marquez v. Gomez (1993) 116 N.M. 626, 631.)

"A product may be considered 'unreasonably dangerous' due to either a design or manufacturing defect, or the manufacturer's failure to warn of a non-obvious risk." (See id; Apperson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours Co., 41 F.3d 1103, 1106 (7th Cir. 1994).)

“Determining whether a duty exists necessarily requires that the court assess whether the relationship between the parties is such that the defendant was under a duty or obligation to use some care to avoid injury to the plaintiffs.” (See id; Anguiano v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 808 F. Supp. 719, 722 (D.Ariz. 1992) (Anguiano I), aff'd, 44 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (Anguiano II).)

Notable Decisions Discussing Strict Product Liability Claims

“In a products liability case, a plaintiff may originally plead theories of negligent manufacture, failure to properly warn, and strict liability, among others.” (See Enriquez v. Cochran (1998) 126 N.M. 196, 217.)

“In Brooks, our Supreme Court examined whether so-called crash worthiness cases involving theories of inadequate or improper design could sound in strict product liability as well as negligence. Overruling Duran, in this regard, the Court ruled that strict products theories were an appropriate avenue of potential liability. In reaching its decision, the Court conducted a thorough review of the policies underlying products liability as a cause of action in general. Id. at 375-77. It thus examined whether those policies would, on balance, be furthered in the context of "design-defect claims" and found that they would.” (See Bustos v. Hyundai Motor Company, 2010 NMCA 90, 15 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010); Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1995) 120 N.M. 372, 373-74; Duran v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1983) 101 N.M. 742, 749-50, 688 P.2d 779, 786-87, overruled on other grounds by Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1995) 120 N.M. 372, 902 P.2d 54.)

“This Court also noted that adoption of strict products liability was borne largely out of dissatisfaction with the remedies afforded consumers under warranty and negligence law. Specifically with regard to the negligence cause of action, this Court stated that [t]he main problem with the negligence theory was the practical one of establishing the failure to exercise due care.” (See Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1995) 120 N.M. 372, 377; Stang v. Hertz Corp. (1972) 83 N.M. 730, 731.)

“The importance of this rationale to the adoption of strict products liability in New Mexico has been echoed in other New Mexico cases. The purpose behind strict products liability . . . is to allow an injured consumer to recover against a seller or manufacturer without the requirement of proving ordinary negligence.” (See id; Aalco Mfg. Co. v. City of Espanola (1980) 95 N.M. 66, 67, 618 P.2d 1230, 1231; Trujillo v. Berry (1987) 106 N.M. 86, 88, 738 P.2d 1331, 1333 (Ct.App.) (same), cert. denied, 106 N.M. 24, 738 P.2d 518.)

“In fact, in holding that a hotelier could not be held strictly liable for the allegedly unsafe design of a hotel room, this Court stated that [t]he rationales behind the application of strict liability do not apply when . . . proof of negligence is not difficult." (See id; Livingston v. Begay (1982) 98 N.M. 712, 716, 652 P.2d 734, 738.)