[Torts] 9. Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. (1985)

[허지예]

Troja v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.--62 Md. App. 101, 488 A.2d 516 (1985)

Fact

The plaintiff(P), Troja, amputated his thumb while using the defendant(D)'s radial arm saw. A safeguard of the saw was easily removed, and P used the saw without it. There was no warning about not using the product without safeguard. P filed a suit against D for strict liability based on the allegedly defective design of the safeguard and D's failure to warn consumers of the risk of using the saw without a guide fence. Judgement was entered for D and P appealed.

Issue

Whether the saw was defective in design because its safeguard was easily removable rendering it unreasonably dangerous.

Rule

Wade, On the Nature of Strict Tort Liability for Products, 44 Miss.L.J. 825, 837-38 (1973)

Under Wade's risk-utility test, whether a product is unreasonably dangerous depends on (1) its utility, (2) the likelihood and severity of injury, (3) the availability of safer alternatives, (4) the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the danger without substantially impairing utility or increasing cost, (5) the user's ability to avoid the danger through reasonable care, (6) the user's anticipated awareness of the danger, and (7) the feasibility of spreading the loss.

Application

Firstly, D's saw had substantial utility because it enabled users to make precise cuts in large pieces of wood and other materials. Second, although the saw could cause severe injuries if used improperly, the likelihood of injury depended substantially on whether the safeguard was used. Third, there was no clear evidence that safer alternative saws could perform the same function without the same risk. Fourth, the record did not establish that D could have made the safeguard more secure without substantially impairing the saw’s utility or increasing its cost. Fifth, P could have avoided the injury by using the saw with its safeguard in place. Sixth, the danger of operating an exposed saw was sufficiently obvious that a user could reasonably be aware of the risk, especially when a user deliberately removed the safeguard. Finally, D could have spread the loss by raising the price of the saw to account for insurance or liability costs. According to this balancing test, the product was not defectively designed, and D is not strictly liable for its product.

Conclusion

Affirmed.

<동영상 분석>

-제일 어려웠던 질문

Q: balancing test의 5번 the user's ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product가 zero에 가까우면 누가 이기는가?

내 답변: 위험을 avoid할 수 있는 가능성이 없으면 P가 유리하다. 

왜냐하면 P가 아무리 조심스럽게 사용해도 위험을 피하기 어려운 속성 자체가 위험한 물건이기 때문에 P의 조심성과는 상관없이 strictly liability의 범주 안에 들어가는 물건이기 때문이다. 그리고 D는 그러한 위험한 물건을 판매하는 것에 대한 risk를 감수해야 한다.

A: 위험을 피할 수 없는 절대적으로 위험한 물건이라면 D는 더 안전하게 만들었어야 한다는 책임에서 벗어난다. 따라서 D에게 유리하다. P가 해당 물건이 위험할 수밖에 없음을 인식했어야 한다.

-내가 잘못 생각한 질문

Q: 만약 3:3으로 동점이었다면 결과가 어떻게 달라지나?

내 답변: 판사가 더 잘못이 크다고 판단한 사람이 진다.

A: Jury가 결정한다. 그런데 보통 동점이면 P가 입증을 충분히 못했기 때문에 P가 진다.