Elmer Freund and Carol Freund, His Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Cellofilm Properties, Inc., a Body Corporate; “u”…

Summary

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that in products liability cases involving inadequate warnings the jury must be instructed on strict liability, not merely negligence, and that a concurrent negligence charge should also be given. The Court reasoned that strict liability imputes the manufacturer's knowledge of product danger, distinguishing it from negligence which requires proof of knowledge. Justice Clifford, in a concurring opinion, urged the inclusion of the Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A language in the strict liability charge. The decision reflects a shift toward uniform strict liability standards for warning defects.