Whether they admit to it or not, all legal professionals will, from time to time, use the law for social engineering purposes. One example of this social engineering function is found in the doctrine of product liability and one clear example of product liability is seen in the automotive industry. A case on point is Huff v. White Motor Co. , a lawsuit that started a trend toward a new standard of automotive product liability. Prior to this case, as strange as it may seem to us today, automotive manufacturers had successfully argued that “the intended purpose of an automobile does not include its participation in collisions.” The pre- Huff rule stated that automobile makers had no responsibility to design and manufacture cars that would protect passengers and drivers from the effects of an accident. Since Huff started the ball rolling three decades ago, the courts and the legislatures have altered this standard and have declared that car manufacturers must now design vehicles that have a high level of “crashworthiness.” Moreover, and perhaps more to the point, the crashworthiness standard is not based on warranties or negligence.
Instead, the standard is based on strict liability. This means that the consumer in an automotive product liability lawsuit does not have to demonstrate that the manufacturer violated a warranty or behaved negligently. The simple fact that the automobile was unsafe beyond what would be expected by the ordinary consumer is enough to result in liability. Today the strict liability standard applies to all products not just vehicles. In addition, the standard extends beyond privity and can be used to hold both the manufacturer and the seller liable. Remember, though, that the law is a balancing act. The courts have also ruled, on the opposite end of the spectrum, that the manufacturers of dangerous products are permitted to promote the sale of their products even though they know that the products are dangerous (not unsafe, but dangerous; there is a difference).
As long as the product itself is legal, the corporation can advertise and sell the product despite its dangerous nature. Thus, somewhere within the intangible dimension of legal niceties there exists an invisible, largely undetectable line between manufacturing products that are unsafe and selling products that are dangerous.
Manufacturing “unsafe products” is wrong; selling “dangerous products” is not. As you read the chapter, see if you can detect just where that line might be drawn. (See Huff v. White Motor Co., 565 F.2d 104 (7 th Cir. App. Ct 1977); David Lauter, “Automakers Face Strict Liability,” The National Law Journal (December 21, 1981), p. 18; and Charles H. Moellenberg, Jr., and Leon F. DeJulius, Jr., “Remove the Tort Liability Muzzle,” The National Law Journal, (May 10, 2010), p. 34.)

Question

1. Is Huff v. White Motors Co. a tort case or a contract case? Explain.
2. What is the difference between a lawsuit based on negligence and one based on strict liability? Explain.
3. Is the “crashworthiness” standard found in sales law or tort law? Explain.
4. What is significant about the fact that the plaintiff in an automotive product liability case does not have to prove privity? Explain.
5. What is the difference between a “dangerous” product and an “unsafe” product? Explain.