Study Notes on Strict and Product Liability

Overview of Strict and Product Liability

This section covers crucial concepts related to strict liability and product liability as legal theories for recovery in personal injury lawsuits.

Legal Theories in Product Liability

  • Legal Theories for Suing: In cases such as burning injuries from defective products like a smartphone with a faulty lithium battery, a plaintiff can pursue various theories of recovery:

    • Contract Theories:

    • Express Warranty

    • Implied Warranty of Merchantability

    • Tort Theories:

    • Negligence

    • Strict Liability

Strict Liability Law

  • Definition: Strict liability is a legal principle where intent is not an element; liability is imposed regardless of fault.

  • Relation to Negligence: It extends concepts within negligence and tort law—focusing on liability without considering fault or intent.

  • Scope of Application:

    • Strict liability applies in cases involving:

    • Abnormally dangerous activities

    • Dangerous animals

    • Defective products.

  • Doctrinal Origin:

    • The modern concept originated in nineteenth-century England and has become widely accepted in U.S. courts, evolving from an exception to a norm.

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

  • Definition: Activities posing a high risk of serious harm that cannot be completely safeguarded against.

  • Examples:

    • Storing explosives

    • Keeping wild animals (liability exists for any harm they inflict).

Dog Bite Law

  • One Bite Rule: Many jurisdictions follow the one-bite rule regarding dog liability, where owners are held liable if they were aware of their dog’s dangerous tendencies after the first incident.

  • Missouri Law Reference:

    • Under Missouri Revised Statute 273.036(1), dog owners are strictly liable for bites regardless of previous viciousness or the owner’s knowledge of it.

Strict Liability for Dangerous Wild Animals

  • Missouri Law Reference:

    • Statute 578.023 criminalizes the keeping of dangerous wild animals without proper registration—classified as a class C misdemeanor.

Product Liability

  • Definition: The liability of manufacturers and sellers for harm caused by defective products.

  • Liability Framework:

    • Manufacturers/sellers are liable for damages caused to consumers, users, or bystanders by their goods.

    • Liability arises out of social policy based on two principles:

    1. Manufacturers can spread injury costs across society through higher prices.

    2. Manufacturers profit from their activities and thus should bear the burden of injuries.

Bases for Product Liability Claims

  • Theories of Liability:

    • Negligence (failure to exercise care)

    • Misrepresentation (fraud)

    • Strict Liability

    • Contract Warranties.

  • Negligence Definition: Failing to exercise the standard of care a reasonable person would under similar circumstances.

Elements of Negligence

  • Due care must be exercised in:

    • Design

    • Materials used

    • Production processes

    • Adequate warnings

    • Inspection and testing processes.

  • Privity of Contract: Not required; injured parties can file claims even if they did not purchase the product.

  • Cause of Action: Two types of causation must be established:

    • Cause in Fact: Also known as the “but for” test, showing the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions.

    • Proximate Cause: Establishes liability based on the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.

Misrepresentation in Product Liability

  • Definition: Liability arises when a user is injured due to fraudulent misrepresentation by a manufacturer or seller.

  • Key Elements:

    • Must be a material misrepresentation made knowingly or with reckless disregard.

  • Example: Intentionally misleading labels on cosmetic products leading to allergic reactions.

Landmark Cases & Evolution of Strict Product Liability

  • Strict Product Liability: Like traditional liability, holds manufacturers accountable regardless of fault.

  • Public Policy Bases:

    1. Protection of consumers against unsafe products

    2. Liability of manufacturers and distributors extending beyond contractual privity

    3. Manufacturers' ability to bear costs of injuries through pricing.

  • Current Status: Most states recognize strict product liability, applying it variably to personal injury and property damages.

Six Requirements for Product Liability Action

  1. Product must be in a defective condition when sold.

  2. Defendant must be engaged in the business of selling/distributing the product.

  3. Product must be unreasonably dangerous due to its defective condition (most states).

  4. Physical harm must occur to plaintiff by use or consumption of the product.

  5. Proximate cause must be established (defective condition must cause harm).

  6. Product must not have been substantially altered after sale.

Demonstrating Defectiveness

  • Plaintiff's Burden: Must show evidence that the product was defective upon leaving the seller’s control.

  • Definition of Unreasonably Dangerous: Products that threaten health and safety beyond consumer expectations or lack economically feasible alternatives.

  • Example: Failure to improve safety on a defective chainsaw.

Types of Product Defects

  • Manufacturing Defect: A flaw in a product resulting from a failure in assembly or testing, diverging from design specifications.

  • Design Defect: To prove, the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable alternative design could have minimized risk, applying risk-utility analysis or consumer expectation tests.

  • Inadequate Warning: Liability for failing to provide adequate instructions or warnings about foreseeable misuse.

Legal Tests for Defects

  • Risk Utility Analysis: Balances the product's risk of harm against its utility.

  • Consumer Expectation Test: Evaluates if the product performs as expected by an ordinary consumer.

Inadequate Warnings

  • Assessing Liability: Plaintiffs must prove inadequate warnings caused their injuries, concerning risk content and comprehensibility.

  • Obvious Risks: No duty to warn about known dangers; not warning about common risks can diminish overall safety perceptions.

Market Share Liability

  • Concept: Shared liability among multiple manufacturers when a specific harmful product source is unidentifiable.

  • Application: Each defendant can be held proportionately liable based on their market share.

Defenses to Product Liability Claims

  • No Basis for Claim: Defendant can argue no merits to plaintiff's claim.

  • Lack of Elements: Claim that the plaintiff did not fulfill required criteria.

  • Preemption: Claims may be dismissed if governed by extensive federal regulations.

  • Assumption of Risk: Plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk associated with the product defect.

  • Product Misuse: Using the product in a non-intended manner, which may limit liability if misuse is foreseeable.

  • Comparative Negligence: If the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the harm, it may reduce their awarded damages.

Statutes of Limitations in Product Liability

  • Time Restrictions: Product liability claims must typically be filed within two to four years, varying by state.

  • Tolling: The timeline begins when the injury is discovered.

  • Statutes of Repose: Set outer limits for bringing actions, limiting vulnerability to indefinite lawsuits.

Conclusion

This detailed exploration outlines the complexities and legal frameworks surrounding strict and product liability, emphasizing their applicability and evolving nature in the intersection of consumer protection and legal accountability.