Chapter 11 Strict Liability and Product Liability Flashcards
Strict Liability in Tort
Duty, Breach of Duty, Causation, and Damages or Injury. BUT–now duty owed is NOT merely duty to act reasonably–it is higher duty! Absolute duty to prevent any injury! Applies to “ultrahazardous” or “unreasonably dangerous” activities.
Factors to determine “unreasonably dangerous” or Strict Liability claim (Six of these)
1) A high degree of risk of harm.
2) Likelihood that the harm will be great.
3) Inability to eliminate the risk even with use of reasonable care.
4) Extent to which the activity is not one of common usage.
5) Inappropriateness of activity for place conducted.
6) Extent to which social value is outweighed by the danger.
Clyne vs. Pyradine
In this case, Pyradine did everything they could within company standards to prevent this accident however this is a strict liability tort and not a negligence tort, therefore they are upheld to different standards and are liable.
The Court said: Firework shows are ultrahazardous, as demonstrated by the first four points above! Therefore Pyradine is liable for injuries.
Another example: holding animals is ultrahazardous like Travis the Chimp.
Product Liability
Not so much a theory of civil liability as a collection of the various theories that apply when someone is injured as the result of an alleged defect in a product.
Product Liability: Negligence
The main difficulty for the plaintiff: they do not have access to the information necessary for the burden of proof. Plaintiff needs to show the defect, how it came about, prove why it is a deft, everything to show breach! Need expert witnesses and technology testimony!
Product Liability: Warranty
Warranty is a contract theory under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Under certain circumstances when goods are sold, the Seller may be deemed, by law, to have made certain warranties (guarantees) regarding the condition of the goods. Express and Implied.
Express Warranty
An affirmation of fact; description of goods; use of sample or model; that is part of the “basis of the bargain”; creates an express warranty that the goods will comply with the affirmation.
Castro vs. QVC Network Inc.
Roasting pan “suitable for roasting a 25 lb. turkey.” Here was a breach of warranty, can sue on contract claim. Because the turkey broke the pan after coming out of the oven and caused burns to the plaintiff.
Implied Warranties: Warranty of Merchantability
1) Fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used, 2) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, 3) be adequately packaged, contained or labeled.
Goodman vs. Wenco Foods, Hong vs. Marriot, Mitchell vs. TGIF
In these cases, all of these objects were technically natural to the food but render the food unfit (i.e. trachea in chicken).
The Court said: What is the reasonable expectation for the consumer to expect in their food! This is the law! Therefore these goods were not fit for human consumption! Factual questions for the jury too.
Strict Product Liability (Three points)
1) The product, in a defective condition, is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
2) The defendant is normally engaged in the business of handling the product.
3) Goods reach the user substantially unaltered.
Strict Product Liabilty: Manufaturing
Defects can arise from here. Even though “due care” was used. Encourages (requires) careful manufacturing process.
Strict Product Liabilty: Design
Defects can arise from the design. Balance known risks versus cost of safer alternatives. No product is 100% safe.
Strict Product Liabilty: Warning
Do not to warn about obvious hazards (Warning: knife is sharp!). Must warn about foreseeable misuses–(Do not place plastic bag over your head).
Strict Product Liability: Conclusion
Strict liability in tort applies to EVERYONE in the chain of distribution subsequent to the defect–not merely the party responsible for creating or causing the defect.
(Designer to manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer)
