Studied by 24 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Strict liability
Liability regardless of fault
Abnormally dangerous activities
Involve high risk of potential harm
Involve high degree of risk that cannot be made safe
Wild animals
Owners keeping wild animals are strictly liable for injuries
Product liability
A manufacturer's, seller's, or lessors liability to:
Consumers, users, and bystanders for physical harm/property damage that is caused by the goods
Due care must be exercised in:
Design
Selecting materials
Production process
Assembling and testing
Adequate warnings
Inspection and testing
Private of Contract not required:
No privity of contract required between plaintiff and manufacturer
Liability extends to any person's injuries caused by a negligently made (defective) product
“Cause in Fact” (Actual Cause) & Proximate Cause
Plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was “cause in fact” of an injury
It must also be determined that the defendant’s act was the proximate cause of the injury
Misrepresentation
Occurs when fraud committed against consumer or user of product
Fraud must have been made knowingly or with reckless disregard for safety
Plaintiff does not have to show product was defective
Ex: No peanuts in product, but does use peanut oil
Strict product liability
Holds people liable for results of their acts, regardless of their intentions/exercise of reasonable care
Requirements for Strict Liability
Product must be in defective condition when sold.
Defendant is in the business of selling the product
Product must be unreasonably dangerous.
Plaintiff must be physically harmed.
Defective condition must be proximate cause of injury.
Goods are in substantially same condition
Proving a Defective Condition
Plaintiff does not need to show why or in
what manner the product became defective.
But plaintiff must show product was defective and “unreasonably dangerous” at time of purchase
“Unreasonably Dangerous” products
The product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer
A less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for manufacturer, but they failed to produce it
Product defects (Restatement 3rd of Torts)
Claims that a product is “unreasonably dangerous” falls into one of these categories:
manufacturing defects
design defects
warning defects
Manufacturing defect
Occurs when a product “departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product
Design Defect
Product is unreasonably dangerous
as designed even if it is manufactured correctly.
Risk-Utility Analysis
Determines whether the risk of harm from the product outweighs its utility to the user and public
Inadequate warnings examples
Foreseeable misuses
Content of Warning: courts a apply a “reasonableness” test to determine if the warnings adequately alert consumers to the product’s risks
Obvious risks: No duty to warn about obvious/commonly known risks
Market-Share Liability
Liability when multiple defendants contributed to manufacture of same defective product
each defendant is proportionately based on its market share
Preemption
government regulations preempt product liability claim
Assumption of Risk
Plaintiff know & appreciated the risk created by the alleged product defect
Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk even though it was unreasonable to do so
Product Misuse
Plaintiff was misusing the product
Plaintiff’s misuse was not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant
Comparative Negligence
Plaintiff’s own negligence or wrongful acts contributed to their injury
Commonly Known Dangers
A danger so commonly known that the defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff
Knowledgeable User
a danger so commonly known by particular users of the product that the defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff
Defenses to Product Liability
Statues of Limitation: Vary by state law
Statues of Repose: Place outer time limits on product liability actions
Note
Flashcard