Final answer:
The statement is true. In product liability law, only commercial suppliers owe a strict duty under strict liability, not casual sellers. This reflects the standard that such suppliers must provide products that are free from unreasonable dangers, contrasting with the more buyer-responsible concept of 'caveat emptor'.
Step-by-step explanation:
To establish a prima facie case for a defective product based on strict liability, the plaintiff must show: (i) a strict duty owed by a commercial supplier; (ii) breach of that duty by the sale of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. This statement is true. Casual sellers, not regularly engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling products, do not owe a strict duty to subsequent purchasers under the rules of strict liability in product liability law.
In a Counter Example Situation, a manufacturer aware of defects in a product that could potentially cause harm chooses to sell the product anyway. If injuries occur as a result, the manufacturer may be held liable due to prior knowledge of the defect, demonstrating a breach of the duty to sell safe products. This is in contrast to the idea of caveat emptor ('let the buyer beware'), which holds less weight in strict liability cases because the emphasis is on the responsibility of the seller to provide a product free of unreasonable dangers.
In moral philosophy, William David Ross described prima facie duties that require judgment to determine which is the overriding duty in situations where multiple duties conflict. Although not directly related to the law of product liability, Ross's philosophy underscores the importance of determining duties based on the specifics of a situation, similar to how the law dictates the duties of sellers in product liability cases.