In a products-liability case, a consumer sues a manufacturer and the manufacturer impleads the product designer as a third party. The designer seeks dismissal of the third-party claim. Which argument is most likely to achieve dismissal?

In a products-liability case, a consumer sues a manufacturer and the manufacturer impleads the product designer as a third party. The designer seeks dismissal of the third-party claim. Which argument is most likely to achieve dismissal?

• A. The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party claim since both the manufacturer and designer reside in State B.
• B. The manufacturer failed to obtain the court’s leave to file the third-party complaint.
• C. The designer’s own fault caused the product’s flaw and injuries.
• D. The third-party claim fails to state a proper third-party claim under Rule 14.

Answer: (C)

The main idea is how impleader under Rule 14 works: a defendant can bring in a nonparty who may be liable to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim, but there must be a viable theory of liability from that third party toward the plaintiff (or toward the defendant in an indemnity/contribution sense). If the designer’s own fault is the cause of the defect and injuries, the designer is the one primarily at fault to the plaintiff. In that situation there isn’t a proper basis for the manufacturer to shift liability to the designer via a third-party claim for indemnity or contribution—the designer’s liability, if any, runs to the plaintiff, not to the manufacturer. Put differently, once the designer’s fault is the sole cause, there’s no meaningful third-party liability for the designer to impose on them to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim against the manufacturer, making the third-party claim untenable. That makes dismissal the most likely outcome. The other options are less persuasive: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party claim is unlikely given the underlying claim and typical supplemental jurisdiction; needing the court’s leave to file a third-party complaint is generally not the controlling fatal issue here; and simply alleging that the third-party claim fails to state a proper Rule 14 claim is too broad when a stronger basis for dismissal lies in the designer’s own fault as the true cause of the harm.

The main idea is how impleader under Rule 14 works: a defendant can bring in a nonparty who may be liable to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim, but there must be a viable theory of liability from that third party toward the plaintiff (or toward the defendant in an indemnity/contribution sense). If the designer’s own fault is the cause of the defect and injuries, the designer is the one primarily at fault to the plaintiff. In that situation there isn’t a proper basis for the manufacturer to shift liability to the designer via a third-party claim for indemnity or contribution—the designer’s liability, if any, runs to the plaintiff, not to the manufacturer. Put differently, once the designer’s fault is the sole cause, there’s no meaningful third-party liability for the designer to impose on them to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim against the manufacturer, making the third-party claim untenable. That makes dismissal the most likely outcome.

The other options are less persuasive: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party claim is unlikely given the underlying claim and typical supplemental jurisdiction; needing the court’s leave to file a third-party complaint is generally not the controlling fatal issue here; and simply alleging that the third-party claim fails to state a proper Rule 14 claim is too broad when a stronger basis for dismissal lies in the designer’s own fault as the true cause of the harm.