adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(a)(1965); Schuh v. Fox River Tractor Co., 218 N.W.2d 279, 285-87 (Wis. 1974) (recognizing the doctrine of foreseeable misuse
How later courts described this case
- adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(a)(1965); Schuh v. Fox River Tractor Co., 218 N.W.2d 279, 285-87 (Wis. 1974) (recognizing the doctrine of foreseeable misuse
- observing that Restatement (Second) § 402A “is supplemented by several comments that can be helpful in construing the rule when applying it to an individual factual situation”
- “Strict liability does not make the manufacturer or seller an insurer nor does it impose absolute liability.”
- "From the plaintiff's point of view the most beneficial aspect of the rule [of strict products liability] is that it relieves [the plaintiff] of proving specific acts of negligence."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Currie, C. J.
(concurring). I fully concur in the court’s opinion. This opinion makes it crystal clear why the rule of strict liability in products-liability cases laid down in sec. 402A of Restatement, 2 Torts 2d, which this court now adopts, is not a rule of absolute liability. This is wholly apart from any consideration of such defenses as contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
Strahlendorf v. Walgreen Co. (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 421 , 114 N. W. 2d 823 , did not turn on the issue of privity, the court holding that the toy was safe when properly used. This was the reason why six of the seven members of the court held it was an inappropriate case in which to consider adopting the rule of the Restatement. More than five years were to elapse before a case did present itself in which it was appropriate to consider the issue, and that occurred with the appeal of the instant order.