… Part I of this Comment will discuss the general duty to warn in products liability cases, presenting the duty’s history and development over the years. Part I will continue to introduce some of the different factual contexts in which the question arises of whether the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn encompasses the dangers associated with a third-party product, including when a product’s intended use involves conjunction or integration with another product, such as replacement parts, component parts, or asbestos-containing materials. Next, Part II will survey the different approaches that courts have taken to the third-party duty to warn, with an emphasis on the underlying disagreements between each. Subsequently, Part III will argue that among the three frontrunners in the debate over the duty to warn against the dangers of third-party products, the middle-ground approach of the inevitability standard is best. This Part will demonstrate how the inevitability standard enjoys all of the legal and policy-based upsides of the other approaches with fewer downsides. Part IV will conclude by reiterating the advantages that courts stand to gain by adopting the proposed inevitability standard.
David Judd, Disentangling DeVries: A Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn against the Dangers of Third-Party Products, 81 Louisiana Law Review (2020).