Phipps v. General Motors Corp.

1 Citing brief

  1. Shilling v. Thomas et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed August 25, 2016

    , United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir.1979), Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir.2002) The elements required to state a claim for product liability, whether characterized as strict liability, negligence or breach of warranty are the same. Hood v. Ryobi N. Am., Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 448, 450 (D. Md. 1998), aff'd sub nom. Hood v. Ryobi Am. Corp., 181 F.3d 608 (4th Cir. 1999. Maryland law requires the following for a strict products liability claim: (1) the plaintiff was the user or consumer of an alleged defective product; (2) the defendant was the seller of the product and at the time of sale was engaged in the business of selling such a product; (3) at the time of sale the product was defective; (4) the product reached the plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold; (5) the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff; and (6) the defect proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. See Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 363 A.2d 955, 959 (1976); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965). “An alleged product defect, may arise from the design of the product, a deficiency in its manufacture or from the absence or inadequacy of any instructions or warnings as to its safe and appropriate use.” Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 166 F. Supp. 2d 378, 407 (D. Md. 2001), citing Simpson v. Standard Container Co., 72 Md. App. 199, 201, 527 A.2d 1337, 1339 (1987). “A negligence theory of products liability, in contrast, focuses upon the reasonableness of the manufacturer's acts and omissions, including the reasonableness of any warning, rather than upon the existence of a defect in the product itself.”