16) Strict Products Liability Flashcards
focus on
condition of product that D put into the market
SPL: elements
1) proper P
2) proper D
3) proper context
4) defect
5) cause in fact
6) proximate cause
7) damages
8) SPL defenses
proper P: def
any P who is a user, consumer, or bystander injured while using a defective product may recover damages from an appropriate D
privity of k not required – dnn to be purchaser
proper D: def
commercial suppliers at all levels of the distribution chain and those in the market of selling the product
proper Ds: yes
manufacturers
wholesaler
retailer
NOT proper D
1) occasional / 1x seller
2) ppl supplying services (ex. optometrist)
proper context: def
not services – need a product
proper context: hybrid case
which predominates, goods or services?
if product: yes SPL
if services, and product merely incidental, then no SPL
proper context: hybrid case: perm case
the product predominated
defect: general def/rule
liability wher eproduct is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous
defects: kinds
1) manufacturing
2) design
3) warnings
manufacturing defect: def
product manufactured in form not intended by the manufacturer and defect existed at time it left D’s hands
design defect: def
product was manufactured as manufacturer intended, BUT still presents danger of PI or property damage to P
design defect: tests
1) ordinary consumer expectation
2) risk-utility balancing
design defect: ordinary consumer expectation: test
a product is defective when it is more dangerous than would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, w the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its chs
design defect: risk-utility balancing test
product is defective if jury determines that the danger it threatens (cost in human injury + property damage) outweighs its utility to society
balance:
likelihood / nature / potential severity of injuries
vs
usefulness
consider availability, cost, impact of safer alternative designs
“state of the art”
no safer alternative designs exist
risk-utility balancing test – when is the product defective?
if an alternative design could have reduced the danger at about the same cost
defective design: exceptions
extraordinary social utility + no alternative design
defective design: exception: results
can’t be found defective design (but could still find manufacturing defect or warning defect)
defective design: exceptions: examples
vaccines
rx drugs
med devices
defective warning: kinds
1) inadequate warning
2) failure to warn
inadequate warning: test
does the warning reasonably inform the foreseeable user of significant risks?
inadequate warning: factors to consider
language
placement
font size
who’s foreseeable user?
failure to warn: test
manufacturer has to warn about significant risks of which it knows or shoudl hav eknown
consider: gravity + probability of harm
warnings: liability in the chain
yes! still SPL so ok if the retailer who didn’t put the warning on there can make the claim
SPL: cause in fact
same (MLTN that but-for or SF)
general rule: usually prove causation by showing the defect that injured P was in existence at the tie it left D’s control
SPL: proximate cause
same rule – look for intervening forces that are highly culpable, highly unforeseeable, and therefore superceding
SPL: proximate cause: example
sometimes someone lower down the chain can be a superceding cause (like parents allowing kid to access rat poison)
SPL: PC: learned intermediary doctrine: rule
if manufacturer provides warning to a dr, can expect that dr will pass it on to pt. If dr does not, then dr is the superseding cause
SPL: damages: rule
only recoverable when:
1) injury to a person, or
2) property damage OTHER THAN TO THE PRODUCT ITSELF
SPL: damages: if harm is only to the produt itself
only claim P can make is breach of warranty (not SPL, ni negligence)
SPL: defenses: list
1) misuse
2) alteration
3) assumption of risk
defense: misuse: def
if P uses product in manner that is NEITHER INTENDED NOR FORESEEABLE, then has misused product and cannot recover
defense: alteration: def
where 3rd person unforeseeably + substantially alters product, no liability for D
defense: alteration: “alter” def
changes in design, formula, function, etc
assumption of risk in SPL rule
just like in regular SL, comparative fault is no defense – only assumption of the risk
RIL is only for
negligence + breach
negligence product liability: who can sue?
any foreseeable P
negligence product liability: proving breach
consider conduct of each D, was it reasonable?
unlike SPL focus is on the person not the product
negligence product liability: RIL
can work instead of manufacturing defect
neglifence product liability: defenses
same as any other negligence action
breach of warranty claims: 2 kinds of warranties
1) express
2) implied
express warranty: def
D made a representation re nature or quality of product (that becomes basis of transaction) (can be seller at any level)
implied warranty: def
if merchant – implied warranty that the goods are of average quality for goods of taht kind + generally fit for purpose that these goods are normally used
implied warranty: exceptions
1) problems w privity or notice
2) if warranty was disclaimed
