Torts (Products Liability)
429 Pa. 626, 241 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1968)
Study notes for Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A residence sold by a builder-vendor is not considered a 'product' under Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, thus no strict products liability applies.
In Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court examined the application of strict products liability to the construction and sale of residential dwellings. The court emphasized the distinction between goods sold in commerce and personal real property like homes, asserting that a home does not fit the standard definition of a 'product' under Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A. Professors highlight the implications of this ruling on the liability of builders and the broader construction industry, as it limits the legal recourse available to homeowners for defects arising from design or construction issues.
This case is pivotal for understanding the development of product liability law and its boundaries, particularly in relation to immovable property. Professors may also encourage students to consider how this case relates to other avenues of liability for builders, such as breach of warranty or negligence, and how these legal principles might provide alternative remedies to plaintiffs in similar situations.
Dwellings Are Not Products: homes are real property, not commercially sold goods.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Rogers v. Coney Island, City of New York | In Rogers, strict liability was applied to commercial products, unlike the residential context in Cheney. |
| Hoffman v. Mendez | Hoffman involved a defect in a manufactured item, which is treated as a product, whereas Cheney dealt with a residential structure. |
Limiting strict liability for builders encourages economic activity in construction and avoids an excessive burden of liability for defects inherent in complex, custom-built homes.
Consumers should be afforded protection against latent defects in homes given the complexity of residential constructions, which often possess significant defects not visible at sale.
This case may appear on exams as a leading example of the limits of strict products liability, particularly regarding residential real estate transactions and construction defects.