Non-manufacturer: Strict product liability applies not only to the product’s manufacturer, but also to its retailer, and any other person in the distributive chain (e.g., a wholesaler).

Unavoidably unsafe products: A product will not give rise to strict liability if it is “unavoidably unsafe.” For instance, if a prescription drug causes side effects or allergies in some patients, and there is no way to avoid these, the drug is “unavoidably unsafe” and thus not “defective.”

Warnings: A product may become “defective” because D has failed to issue a warning concerning its use. In general, even if a product is properly designed and properly manufactured, D must give a warning if there is a non-obvious risk of person injury from using the product. Similarly, D must give instructions concerning correct use, if incorrect use would create a danger.

Who may be a plaintiff: The three theories differ as to who may be a plaintiff. The main area of controversy relates to “bystanders,” i.e., one who is neither a purchaser nor user of the product, but who is injured merely because he happens to be nearby. Generally, the negligence and strict liability theories protect any bystander who is “reasonably foreseeable,” but courts are split as to whether the warranty theories protect such a bystander.