Opinion of the Court
consumers of nonobvious and not generally known risks that unavoidably inhere in using or consuming the product”).
Importantly, the product manufacturer will often be in a better position than the parts manufacturer to warn of the danger from the integrated product. See generally G. Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents 311–318 (1970). The product manufacturer knows the nature of the ultimate integrated product and is typically more aware of the risks associated with that integrated product. By contrast, a parts manufacturer may be aware only that its part could conceivably be used in any number of ways in any number of products. A parts manufacturer may not always be aware that its part will be used in a way that poses a risk of danger.[1]
To be sure, as the manufacturers correctly point out, issuing a warning costs time and money. But the burden usually is not significant. Manufacturers already have a duty to warn of the dangers of their own products. That duty typically imposes a light burden on manufacturers. See, e.g., Davis v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 399 F. 2d 121, 131 (CA9 1968); Butler v. L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc., 296 F. 2d 623, 625–626 (CA2 1961); Ross Labs. v. Thies, 725 P. 2d 1076, 1079 (Alaska 1986); Moran v. Faberge, Inc., 273 Md. 538, 543–544, 332 A. 2d 11, 15 (1975). Requiring a manufacturer to also warn when the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that a required later-added part is likely to make the integrated product dangerous for its intended uses should not meaningfully add to that burden.
The manufacturers also contend that requiring a warning even when they have not themselves incorporated the part into the product will lead to uncertainty about when product manufacturers must provide warnings. But the
- ↑ We do not rule out the possibility that, in certain circumstances, the parts manufacturer may also have a duty to warn.
