Battery
The claim of battery typically requires the proof of intent. Intent in a battery claim is often defined as having a substantial certainty that the action will cause harm to the plaintiff. In this case, there is not evidence presented to suggest that DishWay had the substantial certainty that their product would cause harm, especially since they were unaware of the residue issue with aluminum. Therefore, a claim of battery may not be supported in this scenario.
Negligence
To establish a product negligence case against DishWay, the following four elements must be closely examined: duty, breach, causation, and damage.
Duty
The initial step is to ascertain whether DishWay owed a duty of care to Paul. It is a general principle that manufacturers have a duty to ensure the safety of their products for consumers. However, the extent of this duty may be contingent on what a reasonable business would do under similar circumstances. Whether a reasonable business would test for residue on aluminum in this situation might require more information and would likely be a matter for a jury to decide.
Breach
If a jury determines that a reasonable business would test a dishwasher agent for residue on various surfaces, especially given the knowledge that residue can vary across different materials, then DishWay's duty to ensure the safety of UltraKlean would extends to such testing to identify and mitigate potential risks associated with residue left on common materials. If that is the case, DishWay may have breached its duty by failing to test UltraKlean on aluminum cookware, a common material.
On the other hand, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be particularly relevant in this case. This legal principle allows an inference of negligence to be drawn from the very nature of an accident or injury, under the assumption that certain events ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence. Here, the mere fact of UltraKlean leaving a potentially dangerous residue on aluminum cookware could, in itself, be indicative of negligence. This could shift the burden of proof to DishWay, compelling them to demonstrate that there was no negligence in their testing or manufacturing process.
Causation
Causation requires showing that "but for" the defendant's breach of duty, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. In this scenario, there seems to be a clear causal link between DishWay's failure to test UltraKlean on aluminum and Paul's injuries. The laboratory test results confirmed that the cleaning agent in UltraKlean caused Paul's stomach pain.
In addition to the factual causation linking DishWay's breach to Paul's injuries, the foreseeability of the harm is also a crucial aspect of causation. DishWay could argue that while it is known that the agent in UltraKlean could cause severe stomach pain if ingested, this is a common characteristic of all detergent products, and thus they had no reason to foresee that their product would behave differently on aluminum. They might also contend that they could not have foreseen that the residue on aluminum would exceed safe levels, as there was no indication that UltraKlean would react differently with aluminum compared to other materials. However, this argument is likely to fail given that it is not unusual for dishwasher powders to leave a harmless amount of residue on different surfaces. The commonality of residue left by dishwasher powders could establish a basis for foreseeability, implying that DishWay should have anticipated and tested for varying levels of residue on different materials including aluminum, to ensure the safety of UltraKlean for all users.
Damage
Finally, the damage element requires showing that the plaintiff suffered actual harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's breach or the product's defect. It is important to note that pure economic loss is generally not recoverable in product liability claims. Here, Paul encountered severe stomach pain necessitating hospitalization due to the UltraKlean residue on his aluminum cookware, thereby substantiating the element of damage.
Based on these elements, there could be a strong argument for negligence on DishWay's part. The potential success of DishWay in defending against a negligence claim might hinge on convincing the jury that they fulfilled the duty of a reasonable business, and that the unique residue issue with aluminum was unforeseeable.
Strict Liablity
In a strict product liability claim, the plaintiff needs to establish four key elements: 1) that the defendant is a merchant, 2) that the product sold or produced by the defendant was defective, 3) causation and 4) damages.
DishWay is clearly a merchant specifically involved in the creation and/or distribution of dishwasher products like UltraKlean.
The focus is on whether the product was defective, and a defect is often assessed based on whether the product meets the reasonable expectations of the consumer. In this scenario, Paul used UltraKlean on a very common material, aluminum, and suffered severe health consequences as a result, which clearly falls short of the reasonable expectations for the product's performance and safety. Therefore, it could be strongly argued that UltraKlean was defective.
A common defense against a claim of defectiveness is the argument that a product could not have been made safer, given the existing level of technology and practical constraints at the time of manufacture. However, in this case, that argument appears to be weak. Other similar products do not have this issue, and a simple, low-cost test on aluminum by DishWay could have potentially identified and resolved the residue problem, indicating that there was room for improvement to make UltraKlean safer.
Upon establishing a defect in strict liability claims, it is also essential to establish causation and damage. As discussed in the negligence part, these two elements may be relatively easier to prove.
Breach of Warranty
Express warranties are affirmations of fact or promises made by the seller to the buyer which relate to the goods and become part of the basis of the bargain. Here, DishWay's advertisement of UltraKlean as a "safe product" can indeed simplifies matters because regardless of whether there was negligence on the part of DishWay or if UltraKlean was defective, DishWay clearly contradicted their advertisement promise by labeling UltraKlean as a "safe product." This contradiction constitutes a breach of express warranty, which is a straightforward claim
Furthermore, even in the absence of an express warranty, there could still be a case for breach of implied warranty. Implied warranties are unspoken, unwritten promises created by law, which assure that the product will function as expected, including a basic level of safety which is a fundamental expectation for a dishwasher detergent.
To conclude, battery claims seem less likely, while negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty claims present stronger avenues for pursuing liability against DishWay, regardless of their advertising assertions on safety.