§63.6 Component Parts Doctrine

The Case: Davis v. Komatsu America Industries Corp ., 42 S.W.3d 34 (Tenn. 2001).

The Basic Facts: Plaintiff, a worker on a "press line" in a microwave oven factory, brought a products liability action against the manufacturer of a machine on the line in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. On appeal of a granted motion for summary judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certified question for the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

The Bottom Line:

  • "Does Tennessee products liability law include a 'component parts doctrine' as described by the district court, and if so, what are the precise contours of the doctrine?" 42 S.W.3d at 36.
  • "As described by the District Court, the component parts doctrine provides that a manufacturer who supplies a non-defective and safe component part generally will not be held liable for a defective or unreasonably dangerous final product. However, when a component manufacturer participates in designing a defective or unreasonably dangerous final product, the component manufacturer may be held liable for injuries caused by the final product even though the component itself was not defective or unreasonably dangerous. See Davis, 46 F. Supp.2d at 753." Id. at 38.
  • "Consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority, the drafters of the [Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1997)] included a streamlined and simplified statement of the doctrine as follows:
    §5. Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor of Product Components for Harm Caused by Products into Which Components are Integrated

    One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing product components who sells or distributes a component is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by a product into which the component is integrated if:

    (a) the component is defective in itself . . .and the defect causes the harm; or

    (b)(1)the seller or distributor of the component substantially participates in the integration of the component into the design of the product; and

    (2) the integration of the component causes the product to be defective . . .; and

    (3) the defect in the product causes the harm."
    Id . at 40-41.
  • "Echoing the judicial decisions discussing this issue, comment a explains the rationale for Section 5 as follows:
    If the component is not itself defective, it would be unjust and inefficient to impose liability solely on the ground that the manufacturer of the integrated product utilizes the component in a manner that renders the integrated product defective. Imposing liability would require the component seller to scrutinize another's product which the component seller has no role in developing. This would require the component seller to develop sufficient sophistication to review the decisions of the business entity that is already charged with responsibility for the integrated product."
    Id . at 41.
  • "Comment e clarifies the parameters of the liability described by Section 5(b):
    When the component seller is substantially involved in the integration of the component into the design of the integrated product, the component seller is subject to liability when the integration results in a defective product and the defect causes harm to the plaintiff. Substantial participation can take various forms. The manufacturer or assembler of the integrated product may invite the component seller to design a component that will perform specifically as part of the integrated product or to assist in modifying the design of the integrated product to accept the seller's component. Or the component seller may play a substantial role in deciding which component best serves the requirements of the integrated product. When the component seller substantially participates in the design of the integrated product, it is fair and reasonable to hold the component seller responsible for harm caused by the defective, integrated product. A component seller who simply designs a component to its buyer's specifications, and does not substantially participate in the integration of the component into the design of the product, is not liable within the meaning of Subsection (b). Moreover, providing mechanical or technical services or advice concerning a component part does not, by itself, constitute substantial participation that would subject the component supplier to liability."
    Id .
  • "While no Tennessee statutory provision speaks directly to the situation addressed by Subsection 5(b) of the [Restatement (Third) of Torts], we conclude that Tennessee law does support imposition of liability when a component manufacturer substantially participates in the integration of the non-defective component into the design of the final product, if the integration of the component causes the final product to be defective and if the resulting defect causes the harm." Id. at 42
  • "We hereby adopt both Section 5(b) and comment e. We emphasize that '[a] component seller who simply designs a component to its buyer's specifications, and does not substantially participate in the integration of the component into the design of the product,' is not liable. [RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS: Products Liability § 5b comment e (1997)] (emphasis added.) In addition, 'providing mechanical or technical services or advice concerning a component part does not, by itself, constitute substantial participation that would subject the component supplier to liability.'" Id. at 43.

After an accident, many injury victims and their families want more information on the accident and their legal rights. Consequently, many of them have found their way to these pages. While we are happy you are here, please understand Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law was written to be a quick, invaluable reference for Tennessee tort lawyers. While the book provides the leading case for more than 300 tort law subjects and thousands of related case citations, it is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Rather than researching these legal issues alone, we urge you to contact one of our award-winning lawyers who can sit down with you, review your case, answer your questions and clearly explain your rights and your options in a no-cost, no-obligation consultation. Our experienced attorneys handle all personal injury and wrongful death cases on a contingency basis, so we only get paid if we win. If for any reason you are unable to come to our office, we will gladly come to you.

To schedule an appointment, contact us online or call us at 615-742-4880 or toll-free at 866-812-8787.



The foregoing is an excerpt from Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law, published by John A. Day, Civil Trial Specialist, Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, recipient of Best Lawyers in America recognition, Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney, and Top 100 Tennessee Mid-South Super Lawyers designee. Read John’s full bio here.

To order a copy of the book, visit www.dayontortsbook.com. John also blogs regularly on key issues for tort lawyers. To subscribe to the Day on Torts blog, visit www.dayontorts.com.

Client Reviews
Everything was great. You guys are a great representative. I was satisfied with everything. Truly appreciate John Day and his hard-working staff.
★★★★★
We thought that you did an excellent job in representing us in our lawsuit. We would recommend you to anyone. Mitch Deese
★★★★★
The Law Offices of John Day is, without a doubt, the best in Nashville! They treated me with the utmost respect and tended to my every need. No question went unanswered. I was always kept informed of every step in the process. I received phenomenal results; I couldn't ask for more. I would definitely hire the Law Offices of John Day again. Anthony Santiago
★★★★★
I would definitely recommend to anyone to hire John Day's law firm because everyone was helpful, made everything clear and got the job done. I am satisfied with how my case was handled. June Keomahavong
★★★★★
It's been a long battle but this firm has been very efficient and has done a remarkable job for me! I highly recommend them to anyone needing legal assistance. Everyone has always been very kind and kept me informed of all actions promptly. Linda Bush
★★★★★
I had a great experience with the Law Offices of John Day. The staff was very accommodating, and my phone calls/emails were always responded to in a timely manner. They made the entire process very easy and stress-free for me, and I had confidence that my case was in good hands. I am very happy with the results, and I highly recommend! Casey Hutchinson
★★★★★