ABSTRACT
A failure to warn claim may be raised under the theories of negligence, strict products liability, and warranty. A failure to warn claim that is grounded in negligence focuses, at least initially, on the conduct of the supplier and asks: “Was it reasonable for this supplier to release this product into the market with these warnings or lack of warnings?” Strict liability, in turn, imposes liability without fault for the sale of an unreasonably dangerous product. Similarly, in a claim in warranty, a seller’s breach of warranty and consequent liability can be found without regard to the conduct of the seller. Although the theories of negligence and strict liability are analytically distinct, in the context of torts, the definitions of a seller’s duty to provide adequate warnings under either doctrine seem to have converged. The analysis of the duty to warn under each principle proceeds quite similarly in evaluating the nature of the hazard and the type and efficacy of the supplier’s warning (Gracyalny v. Westinghouse, 1983).
