Component Part Doctrine: Exceptions

This articles addresses the exceptions to the component part doctrine defense raised in product liability actions. The defense is typically reserved for bulk and raw material manufacturers, but recently the defense has become more common in automotive product liability cases involving supplier liability. Counsel should be aware that there are exceptions to the rule and take the appropriat steps to develop evidence in discovery to meet these execeptions.

Under the CRMD, a part or raw material manufacturer is generally not responsible for an end product that incorporates its product, but this shield is not without exceptions—i.e, the manufacturer is responsible if the raw part is (a) defective or (b) the manufacturer “substantially participated” in integrating the part.

A. THE PRODUCT IS INHERNENTLY DEFECTIVE

Provided plaintiff's claims are based on a defect in the component part (whether in design, manufacturing, or warning), the claims should survive a motion.  Counsel should be very careful in avoiding peladings that suggest that the product only became defective as it was integrated.  If the claim is based on how the product related to the other components, the claim may be barred, unless the second exception is met. Plaintiff should present sworn expert testimony on the specific defect claimed. It should be emphasized that the “final product” was defective in part due to the defect in the “component part”.

B. A JURY QUESTION MAY EXIST WHETHER SUPPLIER SUBSTANTIALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE INTEGRATION OF THE PRODUCT

There is very little case law addressing what constitutes substantial participation under the CPBM. However, the 6th Circuit did address the issue in the same case cited throughout Defendants brief. In Davis v. Komatsu American Industries, the 6th Circuit Court looked to comment on the Third Restatement:

Substantial participation can take various forms. The manufacturer or assembler of the integrated product may invite the component seller to design a component that will perform specifically as part of the integrated product.

In Komatsu, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant participated in the design of the the press lines circuitry to allow its presses to specifically function as part of the press line. Based on evidence that there were discussions on how it could be integrated, the Court found that, in viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, that an issue of fact existed.

Another federal court in In Re. Matter of Parker Drilling and Offshore, USA. LLC. found that a jury questions exists where (a) there is evidence in participation of the design and (b) where there is evidence the seller had knowledge of the intended use. Finally, the Supreme Court of Arkansas in Wagner v. General Motors Corp. found that issues of fact existed with respect to “substantial participation” even though the automotive part (tempered glass) was designed and manufactured according to GM's specifications, and there was evidence GM produced the drawing for the window.

1. SPECIFIC TYPES OF EVIDENCE:

Counsel should inquire in the process of the design of the larger product. There may be a closer relationship than expected. For example, the supplier may have extensive meetings involving other component part suppliers; there may be collective design drawings with revisions.

The standard is not who had ultimate control—it is a question of participation and foreseeability of the risk. Again, the doctrine contemplates the situation where a sales order is received and filled. The doctrine is not to be a shield for a known and sophisticated participant in the process who has input and exchanged information.