The area of products liability has been rapidly expanding in recent years. Included in this expansion has been an increasing tendency to hold manufacturers liable to those injured by using their products. This trend toward strict liability is thought to cause the manufacturers to exercise greater care in their manufacturing processes and to shift the loss due to injury from the injured party to those engaging in the business which has caused the injury. This burden may then be shifted, by means of a commensurate increase in the price of the product, to the consumers of the product as a whole. While the decision in Love V. Wolf reaches the same result, liability in a case such as this need not be predicated upon the inadequacy of warning or negligence in promotion. Liability in such a situation should be based upon strict liability of the manufacturer or upon breach of warranty, thereby eliminating the burden upon the plaintiff of proving negligence and placing an affirmative duty on the manufacturer to assure that latent defects in their products will not harm consumers. A decision on one of these bases would be more consistent with the current trends in the law of products liability. The most important aspect of the decision in Love is the holding that a subsequent advertising and promotional campaign may cancel a warning that has been given of dangers inherent in a product. This should serve as a caveat to manufacturers that when they seek to induce the purchase of their products by means of assurances of safety inconsistent with warnings which have been given, the warnings may be canceled.

I. Negligence of Parke-Davis

II. Breach of Implied Warranty

III. Strict Liability

IV. Express Warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code

V. Conclusion