Negligence

Question 1

Rule statement for negligence

Answer 1

Negligence is carelessness. In order to determine liability, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, which the defendant breached, and the breach was both the factual cause and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.

Question 2

General rule statement for duty

Answer 2

At first, there was no duty. However, over time, policy changes led to the idea that a general duty exists upon everyone not to act carelessly so as to harm another. More specifically, duty is an obligation, based on special relationship between the parties or a relationship imposed by law, that one person will not place the other in risk of foreseeable and unreasonable harm.

Question 3

General rule statement for breach

Answer 3

Once a duty is established, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached that duty. A breach is a defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care through nonconformance with the applicable standard of care.

Question 4

Duty

Failure to Act

Answer 4

Generally, there is no duty and no liability for a failure to act.

Question 5

Duty

Exceptions to failure to act (6)

Answer 5

1. Relationship to victim: family; carriers, innkeepers, utilities; custody; employment; property ownership
2. Relationship to tortfeasor: children; mental health patients
3. Entrustment of dangerous instrumentalities
4. Involvement in the accident
5. Voluntary assumption of duty
6. Statutory duties

Question 6

Duty

Duty to aid others in emergency

Answer 6

Generally, there is no duty at common law to warn, protect, or rescue a stranger where the defendant is not at fault

Question 7

Duty

Duty to aid others in emergency found (6)

Answer 7

1. Special relationship between defendant and victim
2. Defendant induces reliance or interferes with other rescuers
3. Defendant aused the plaintiff’s injury
4. Statutes may impose duty
5. Special relationship between defendant and harmer
6. Where defendant has understaken aid to the plaintiff

Question 8

Duty

If the defendant voluntarily undertakes to aid the plaintiff . . .

Answer 8

The defendant must exercise due care. The defendant can abandon her efforts, but the condition in which she may leave the plaintiff varies based on jurisdiction (no worse, no comparable peril, or no imminent peril of serious bodily harm). Many states exempt physicians who render aid in an emergency from negligence liability.

Question 9

Duty

Duty to protect and control

Answer 9

There is no duty to control a third person to prevent him from causing harm to another unless (a) a special relationship exists between the defendant and the third person which imposes a duty to control the third person’s conduct or (b) a special relationship exists between the defendant and the other which gives the other a right to protection.

Question 10

Breach

5 ways a plaintiff can prove the defendant failed to use reasonable care

Answer 10

1. Common sense (reasonable, prudent person)
2. Balancing of costs and benefits (hand formula)
3. Custom
4. Negligence per se
5. Res Ipsa Loquitor

Question 11

Breach

Negligene may be proven by . . .

Answer 11

direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence of the fact in question while circumstantialevidence is evidence from which the fact in question may be inferred.

Question 12

Breach

Notice requirement

Answer 12

Notice is only required if a dangerous condition is out of the ordinary. If the defendant’s mode of operation makes injury otherwise foreseeable, the failure to take precautions may give rise to liability, even in the absence of notice of specific conditions which caused harm to the plaintiff.

Question 13

Breach

Actual notice

Answer 13

Actual notice is when the defendant is explicitly informed of the risk of harm.

Question 14

Breach

Constructive notice

Answer 14

Constructive notice is established by evidence that the danger existed so long that it should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care.

Question 15

Breach

Spoliation

Answer 15

The information is in the hands of the defendant. They are required to maintain the information for a specific period of time. Generally, courts will handle spoliation through sanctions. However, in cases of spoliation by a third-party, there is a stronger case for recognizing spoliation as an independent cause of action.

Question 16

Breach

Reasonable, prudent person

Answer 16

Once a duty is established, breach can be determined if the person that owes the duty fails to act as a reasonable, prudent person would under the circumstances. The reasonable, prudent person is neither super cautious, nor inattentive to risks.

Question 17

Breach

Emergency & reasonable, prudent person standard

Answer 17

The existence of an emergency does not change the standard of care, but is a factor bearing upon whether a defendant acted reasonably, unless the defendant created the emergency.

Question 18

Breach

Physical handicap/intoxication & reasonable, prudent person standard

Answer 18

A person with a physical handicap is expected to act as a reasonable, prudent person with the same handicap would. There are generally no allowances for voluntary intoxication, but involuntary intoxication is held to the same standard as physical handicap.

Question 19

Breach

Religious beliefs & reasonable, prudent person standard

Answer 19

A person’s religious beliefs are a relevant factor in determining whether that person acted reasonably, but do not change the standard of care.

Question 20

Breach

Children/age & reasonable, prudent person standard

Answer 20

The standard of care for a child is measured by the degree of care which would ordinarily be observed by children of the same age, intelligence, and experience under similar circumstances. Children are held to an adult standard when they engage in adult activities that are inherently dangerous. Generally, children 5 year and under are not liable for negligence.

Question 21

Breach

Mental deficiency & reasonable, prudent person standard

Answer 21

Generally, metnal deficiency does not excuse a person from liability for conduct which does not conform to the standard of a reasonable, prudent person under the circumstances, unless the mental state is so low the person lacks the capacity to understand a danger exists. Mental deficiency is always relevant to the issue of contributory negligence.

Question 22

Breach

Superior knowledge, training, or skill & reasonable, prudent person standard

Answer 22

If the actor is a member of a profession, the standard of care will be defiend with reference to that group. The actor will be found negligence for failing to perform with the degree of knowledge, skill and diligence of an ordinary, minimally competent member of that profession.

Question 23

Breach

Race, gender, ethnicity & reasonable, prudent person

Answer 23

The majority rule is that an actor’s race, gender, or ethnicity does not change the standard of care or is even a relevant circumstance in determining whether ordinary care was exercised.

Question 24

Breach

Judge-made standards of care

Answer 24

The conduct of a reasonable person may also be established by judicial decision without reliance on legislation. This somtimes yields inflexible results.

Question 25

Breach

Hand formula

Answer 25

Once a duty is established, courts may employ a negligence balancing test to determine if the defendant’s conduct is unreasonable. The hand formula provides that if the burden on the defendant to prevent the risk is less than the probability the event will occur combined with the magnitude of the loss, the defendant will be liable.

B<PxL

Question 26

Breach

Custom

Answer 26

Custom does not determine the standard of care (except for doctors). Conformance with custom raises a rebuttable inference of reasonableness. Departure from custom raises a rebuttable inference of unreasonableness.

Question 27

Breach

Custom exception

Answer 27

An exception to custom raising an inference of reasonableness arises in cases where the custom is negligent as a matter of law.

Question 28

Breach

Negligence established by statute

Answer 28

A statute defines the standard of care if the legislature says it does or the court nevertheless says it does.

Question 29

Breach

Negligence Per Se

Answer 29

Negligence per se leads to a conclusive finding of negligence if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant, without excuse, violated a criminal statute that is designed to protect against the type of harm caused by the defendant and the plaintiff is wihtin the class of persons to be protected.

Question 30

Breach

Excusable violations of statutes (negligence per se)

Answer 30

In majority jurisdictions, a violation only raises a preumption of negligence which the defendant can rebut with evidence of an adequate excuse or reasonable care. If rebutted properly, the jury may disregard the violation as evidence of negligence.

Question 31

Breach

Excuses for statute violations (6)

Answer 31

1. Violation is reasonable in light of the defendant’s childhood or physical diability/incapacitation
2. The defendant exercised reasonable care in attempting to comply with the statute
3. The defendant does not know nor should know of the factual circumstances that render the statute applicable
4. Violation is due to the confusing way in which the statute’s requirements are explained
5. Where it was safer, under the circumstances, to disobey
6. Other excuses worthy of recognition

Question 32

Breach

Not excuses for violation of statute (3)

Answer 32

1. An actor’s personal opinion that the statute is excessive or unwise
2. Ignorance of the law
3. People customarily violate the law

Question 33

Breach

Compliance with statute

Answer 33

Compliance with a statute does not necessarily establish that a defendant acted reasonably. If the situation is more hazardous than usual, precautions beyond the statutory minimum may be required.

Question 34

Breach

Statutes allowing no excuse or defense

Answer 34

Certain types of statutes are commonly interpreted to permit no excuse, imposing a form of strict liability. If laibility is imposed under this theory, no excuse is permitted and thus comparative fault and assumption of the risk are not available.

Question 35

Breach

Special standards of care

Answer 35

Courts have sometimes attempted to implement degrees of negligence through gradations: slight, ordinary, and gross. These are typically avoided because they are impractical in application because they are highly fact-specific, time consuming, and subject to dispute. They are rarely employed, except in connection with bailments, common carriers, innkeepers, and utilities, and some statutes.

Question 36

Breach

Res ipsa loquitor: type of evidence and when used

Answer 36

Res ipsa loquitor (“the thing speaks for itself”) allows a plaintiff to use circumstantial evidence to prove negligence, a duty and a breach, and recover. It is used in situations where there are no witnesses or the witnesses aren’t talking.

Question 37

Breach

Res ipsa loquitor: reason for doctrine

Answer 37

One of the reasons for res ipsa loquitor is cases in which the defendants are in control of all of the evidence.

Question 38

Breach

Res ipsa loquitor: rule statement

Answer 38

The plaintiff must prove that the incident would not normally occur without someone’s negligence; that the incident was of a type that the defendant had a duty to guard against; the instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant’s exclusive control; and that neither the plaintiff nor any third party contributed to or caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

Question 39

Breach

Res ipsa loquitor: exclusive control

Answer 39

Control is not a rigid requirement. All that is required is that the instrumentality is under the defendant’s control at the time the injury occurred, not necessarily that the defendant was in possession of the instrumentality.

Question 40

Breach

Res ipsa loquitor: greater access to information

Answer 40

It is not necessary that the defendant possess superior knowledge or superior opportunity to obtain knowledge of how the injury occurred. However, it is often present in res ipsa loquitor cases as evidence of negligence where companies have greater knowledge of and access to information regarding hazards or risks and potential contributors to such risks.

Question 41

Breach

Res ipsa loquitor: rebuttal evidence

Answer 41

In cases in which the plaintiff asserts res ipsa loquitor, the defendant often respons by producing evidence that due care was in fact exercised. If the defendant’s evidence does not prove such, the plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable inference of negligence.

Question 42

Breach

Res ipsa loquitor: multiple defendants

Answer 42

Res ipsa loquitor may be used if there are multuple defendants and it would be unreasonable to expect the plaintiff, due to no fault of their own, to be able to identify which defendant caused the harm. The defendant must stand in special relationship to each other and that all had responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety. The doctrine typically will not apply in cases where the defendants are strangers to one another. Many cases in non-medical scenarios have required the key test of whether the defendants had joint control over what caused the injury.

Question 43

Legal Malpractice

Duty

Answer 43

An attorney owes a duty of care to anyone who becomes a client. The duty of care extends as far as the scope of representation. Limited obligations may arise to prosective clients, third-party beneficiaries, or nonclients who would reasonably rely on the attorney.

Question 44

Legal Malpractice

Breach

Answer 44

A lawyer, because of her superior knowledge and professional experience, is held to a higher standard of care, that is ,to act as a reasonable, prudent and minimally competent lawyer of the same state would under the circumstances. The standard of care is reasonableness, not good faith. Liability is imposed only if the defendant did what no attorney could do or failed to do what every attorney must do. Expert witnesses from the same state would need to testify as to the state standard.

Question 45

Legal Malpractice

Exercise of discretion

Answer 45

There is no liability for exercise of discretion, including reasonable errors of judgment, failure to predict the resolution of unsettled questions, failure to question well-settled law, or reasonable failure to assert a novel topic.

Question 46

Medical Malpractice

Duty

Answer 46

For a claim of medical malpractice, the plaintiff must prove that a doctor/patient relationship was establishe, such as proving there was an in-person, physical examination.

Question 47

Medical Malpractice

Breach

Answer 47

A physician, because of her superior knowledge and professional experience, is held to a higher standard of care, that is, to act as a reasonable, prudent, and minimally competent physician within the United States would under the circumstances.

Question 48

Medical Malpractice

Proving breach

Answer 48

For physicians, custom is dispositive. Breach of standard of care is usually only provable by expert testimony to establish the threshold at which the physician failed to act properly or the adoption, however skillfully administered, of the wrong method. If the breach is so obvious that a lay person could easily determine there has been a breach, expert testimony is not required.

Question 49

Medical Malpractice

Informed consent: broadly

Answer 49

The doctrine of informed consent requires an adequate disclosure of risks to a patient. The failure to obtain informed consent is professional negligence, even if the treatment is skillfully rendered.

Question 50

Medical Malpractice

Informed consent: rule statement

Answer 50

The plaintiff must prove that the doctor did not disclose all material risks and/or treatment alternatives that a reasonable, prudent, miniminally competent doctor would have disclosed under the circusmtances and in accordance with the recognized standard of acceptable professional practices, which will likely require expert testimony to establish.

Question 51

Medical Malpractice

Informed consent: material risk

Answer 51

A material risk is anything that might change a plaintiff’s decision in whether or not to undergo the treatment. The plaintiff must show that a reasonable, prudent person probably would have declied the treatment had there been full disclosure.

Question 52

Medical Malpractice

Informed consent: exceptions (3)

Answer 52

1. If the information is, or should be, known to the patient
2. Disclosure would be detrimental to the patient’s best interest
3. There is an emergency and the plaintiff cannot give consent

Question 53

Factual cause

Factual cause: general rule

Answer 53

Once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant has acted negligently, he/she must prove that the negligence was the factual cause of the injury and resulting damages.

Question 54

Factual cause

But for test

Answer 54

The plaintiff must show that but for the defendant’s negligence, the injury would not have occurred. There can be multiple but for causes for an event.

Question 55

Factual cause

Substantial factor test

Answer 55

If the plaintiff sustains an injury as the result of the negligent conduct of two or more tortfeasors, and it appears that the conduct of either one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both are liable if each of their acts was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

Question 56

Factual cause

Substantial factor?

Answer 56

A substantial factor is one which multiplies the odds of the incident occurring from possible to probable.

Question 57

Factual cause

Concurrent causes test

Answer 57

Where the separate negligent acts of the defendant and a party concur to cause a single injury, and it appears that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the concurrence, then both defendants are actual causes and jointly liable.

Question 58

Factual cause

Loss of chance

Answer 58

Loss of chance is the loss of ability to secure a correct diagnosis and earlier treatment which might have extended the patient’s life. The plaintiff must prove that the physician’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s likelihood of achieving a more favorable outcome to be diminished.

Question 59

Factual cause

Formula for loss of chance

Answer 59

(1) Total amount of damages allowed under wrongful death statute; (2) % chance of survival prior to malpractice; (3) % chance of survival after malpractice; (4) subtract (3) from (2); multiple (4) by (1)

Question 60

Factual cause

Multiple fault and alternative liability

Answer 60

Where a plaintiff cannot show whether one of two defendants’ negligence was the actual cause of the injuries, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show his/her negligence was not the actual cause. If the defendants cannot decide amongst themselves who is liable, they will be held jointly liable.

Question 61

Factual cause

Market share laibility: broad applications

Answer 61

Market share liability is a limited liability theory and, in the vast majority, only applies to fungible goods.

Question 62

Factual cause

Market share liability: requirements (4)

Answer 62

1. All named defendants are potential tortfeasors
2. Alleged products of all tortfeasors are identical
3. Plaintiff, through no fault of her own, cannot identify which defendant caused the injury
4. Defendants represent a substantial share of the market. (each defendant is liable for damages representing only its share of the market at the relevant time)

Question 63

Factual cause

California market share

Answer 63

The burden shifts to the defendants if the number sued is sufficiently substantial to prevent injustice. Defendants may exculpate themselves by proving they did not make the particular item in question.

Question 64

Factual cause

New York market share

Answer 64

Defendant who engaged in a particular type of conduct is liable even if it neither caused the plaintiff’s harm nor acted in concert with the one who did. Enforced a national market measure.

Question 65

Factual cause

Enterprise liability

Answer 65

Enterprise liability requires that multiple manufacturers cooperated in the production and design of a faulty product based on an industry-wide standard. The buden shifts to the defendants if they jointly controlled the risk and it is virtually certain that the responsible party is in court.

Question 66

Factual cause

Concerted action liability: broad, general rule

Answer 66

A concerted actoin is a common plan or design to commit, aid, or otherwise further a tortious act.

Question 67

Factual cause

Concerted action liability: rule statement

Answer 67

A person is subject to liability for harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another if the person (1) commits a tortious conduct as a part of a common scheme or design with the other; (2) gives substantial assistance to the other knowing that the other’s is a breach of duty; or (3) gives substantial assistance to the other to accomplish a tortious result while also acting in a manner that is a breach of duty to the third person.

Question 68

Factual cause

Concerted action: common scheme or design

Answer 68

Some level of knowledge or awareness of pertinent attendant circumstances is required. The focus is on the defendant’s knowledge of the conditions that resulted in harm to the plaintiff. Merely acting in concert is not enough if the plan or scheme itself is not tortious, unless there is knowledge of some aspect of circumstances that creates a foreseeable risk.

Question 69

Factual cause

Concerted action: aiding and abetting

Answer 69

Aiding and abetting is providing substantial assistance or encouragement to someone committing a tortious act

Question 70

Factual cause

Concerted action: civil conspiracy

Answer 70

Civil conspiracy is an agreement to act together and requires intent to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means

Question 71

Proximate cause

Proximate cause: general rule statement

Answer 71

After proving factual causation, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was the proximate cause, or legal cause, of the harm. The question is whether the harm to the plaintiff was so remote, so unforeseeable, so bizarre that holding the defendant liable is unfair.

Question 72

Proximate cause

Foreseeability: rule statement

Answer 72

A defendant is generally only liable for consequences qhich are reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability focuses on whether the defendant should have reasonably foreseen, as a risk of her conduct, the general type of harm suffered by the plaintiff. However, the result must be within the risk created by the defendant’s conduct and foreseeability is not sufficient to create liability if the harm is too tenuous and remote.

Question 73

Proximate cause

Intervening cause

Answer 73

An intervening cause is a new force which joins with the defendant’s conduct to cause the plaintiff’s injuries. An intervening cause can be human, animal, mechanical, or natural. If the defendant should have foreseen the possibility that the cause might occur or the type of harm was foreseeable, the defendant’s conduct is nonetheless the proximate cause.

Question 74

Proximate cause

Superseding intervening cause

Answer 74

The defendant is relieved from liability if there is a superseding intervening cause. [Intervening cause]. An intervening cause is considered superseding only when unforeseeable and its occurrence appears extraordinary under the circumstances. If the intervening cause is foreseeable, liability is still superseded if the defendant’s conduct in no way increases the likelihood of the harm occurring.

Question 75

Proximate cause

Must be foreseen (3)

Answer 75

1. General class of persons
2. General type of harm
3. Only a remote possibility of harm

Question 76

Proximate cause

Does not have to be foreseen (3)

Answer 76

1. Exact maner of harm
2. Full extent of harm
3. Ordinary rescue measures

Question 77

Proximate cause

Pure economic loss

Answer 77

In general, there is no liability for negligent interferences with economic interests.

Question 78

Proximate cause

Exceptions to pure economic loss rule

Answer 78

1. Where negligence relates to legal or accounting malpractice
2. Misrepresentation
3. Failure to settle an insurance claim within policy limits
4. Spoliation of evidence
5. Breach of fiduciary duty

Question 79

Proximate cause

Criminal or intentionally tortious acts as intervening causes

Answer 79

An intentional tort or a criminal act will cut off foreseeability and will relieve the liability of the tortfeasor, except where the intentional tort and criminal act is in fact forseeable.

Question 80

Proximate cause

Rescue doctrine

Answer 80

Danger invites rescue. Rescue is presumed reasonably foreseeable, and the defendant is liable for any injury to a rescuer, so long as the rescue was not undertaken carelessly. The rescue doctrine requires imminent peril, an act of intervention, and an underlying tortious conduct by the defendant.

Question 81

Proximate cause

Rescue: Peril created by victim

Answer 81

The rescue doctrine applies where the peril has been created by the victim

Question 82

Proximate cause

Rescue: liability for losses when?

Answer 82

The doctrine governs liability for losses subsequent to intervention.

Question 83

Proximate cause

Rescue: Liability of rescuer to victim

Answer 83

A rescuer whose careless intervention injures the person in peril may be liable for that harm. However, the emergent nature of the circumstances will be taken into account in determining whether the rescuer was in fact negligent.

Question 84

Proximate cause

Rescue: contributory negligence of rescuer

Answer 84

The contributory negligence of the rescuer to his or her own injuries may be taken into account in determining damages.

Question 85

Proximate cause

Rescue: liability of third party to rescuer

Answer 85

Generally, a third party will not be liable to a rescuer after the rescue has already begun

Question 86

Proximate cause

Rescue: Professional rescuers

Answer 86

A professional rescue cannot sue the creator of peril for negligence, except where the peril is create by reckless or intentional conduct.

Question 87

Proximate cause

Victim suicide

Answer 87

Generally, courts will not allow recovery against an original tortfeasor when a victim subsequently commits suicide, as the court finds this to be an intervening superseding cause so as to cut off liability.

Question 88

Proximate cause

Omissions by others

Answer 88

Omissions by another are not a superseding cause. The third party’s failure to stop and render aid does not forgice the original tortfeasor of neglgience.

Question 89

Proximate cause

Omissions of others: shifting responsibility

Answer 89

When the initial tortfeasor has done everything possible to avoid the harm or if the omission is unforeseeable, responsibility may shift and the tortfeasor will not be liable for subsequent losses.

Question 90

Proximate cause

Omissions of others: relevant factors to determine when responsibility shifts (5)

Answer 90

1. Lapse of time
2. Contract governing duty to act
3. Magnititude of threatened harm
4. Character and position of the third party
5. Likelihood the third party will act

Question 91

Proximate cause

Original tortfeasor liability for medical malpractice

Answer 91

Medical malpractice is presumed as reasonable and foreseeable if the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the need for medical attention

Question 92

Proximate cause

Original tortfeasor’s liability for instinctive reactions

Answer 92

Instinctive reactions to a defendant’s negligent conduct are reasonably foreseeable and the defendant will be liable for consequences of those instinctive reactions

Question 93

Proximate cause

Original tortfeasor’s liability for negligence of others

Answer 93

Negligence of others can be reasonably foreseeable and the defendant may be held liable for it

Question 94

Proximate cause

Original tortfeasor’s liability for contraction of disease

Answer 94

Contraction of disease is a reasonably foreseeable result when a defendant negligently injures a plaintiff

Question 95

Duty

Negligent Entrustment

Answer 95

The defendant is responsible because of what they knew or what they should have known would or could have happened, whether or not it was foreseeable.

Question 96

Duty

Public Duty Rule

Answer 96

A duty to all is a duty to none. A public entity cannot be held liable for a failure to provide protection absent a special relationship to the victim.

Question 97

Duty

Public duty rule: special relationship (4)

Answer 97

1. Agency’s knowledge of the need
2. Agency’s response
3. Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation
4. Action by co-equal branches

Question 98

Duty/Premises Liability

Modern rule

Answer 98

The landowner has a duty to maintain a premises as a reasonable, prudent person would in view of the probability of injury to others, except for in the case of flagrant trespassers.

Question 99

Duty/Premises Liability

Modern rule: treatment of traditional categories

Answer 99

The modern view sees the traditional statuses as a potential factor in liability, but not determinative.

Question 100

Duty/Premises Liability

Modern rule: flagrant trespassers

Answer 100

The only duty owed to flagrant trespassers is not to act in an intentional, willful, or wanton manner to cause physical harm.

Question 101

Duty/Premises Liability

Modern rule: Known or obvious dangers

Answer 101

The presence of known or obvious dangers is merely a factor in determining whether reasonable care was exercised.

Question 102

Duty/Premises Liability

Traditional rule

Answer 102

Traditionally, the duty of care owed by the defendant varied according to the status of the plaintiff as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.

Question 103

Duty/Premises Liability

Definition of possessor

Answer 103

A possessor is one who exercises actual control over the property, not necessarily the owner. Whoever controls the land is responsible for the upkeep of the property, as if they were the owner. Only a possessor or someone acting on the possessor’s behalf is protected by the limited rules. Anyone else on the property must act with reasonable care.

Question 104

Duty/Premises Liability

Status: trespasser

Answer 104

Persons with no right to be upon the land

Question 105

Duty/Premises Liability

What is the duty owed to trespassers?

Answer 105

No duty is owed to a trespasser, except to refrain from willful, wanton, and reckless conduct resulting in harm to the trespasser.

Question 106

Duty/Premises Liability

What are the two exceptions to the trespasser duty rule?

Answer 106

Two exceptions may impose a duty of reasonable care in the case of trespassers: (1) constant trespass on a limited area of land (duty to use reasonable care to make premises safe or at least warn of latent and hidden dangers) and (2) discovered trespassers (duty to warn as far as is reasonable of any artificial conditions that are latent or hidden dangers; no duty for open and obvious)

Question 107

Duty/Premises Liability

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

Answer 107

An attractive nuisance is an artificial condition on land highly dangerous to trespassing children

Question 108

Duty/Premises Liability

Factors for Liability of Attractive Nuisances (5)

Answer 108

1. Possessor knows or should know that children are likely to trespass;
2. Possessor knows or should know the condition involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm;
3. The children, because of their youth, do not discover the conditoin or realize the risk of danger;
4. The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and burden to remediate are slight compared to the risk; and
5. The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children.

Question 109

Duty/Premises Liability

Status: Licensees

Answer 109

Persons rightfully upon land (by reason of consent, express or implied, or privilege) for their own purposes or as social guests

Question 110

Duty/Premises Liability

Licensees: duty owed

Answer 110

Duty to (1) warn of latent dangers (natural and artificial) and (2) exercise reasonable care in active operations

Question 111

Duty/Premises Liability

Can statuses be exceeded?

Answer 111

Yes, licensee and invitee can be exceeded

Question 112

Duty/Premises Liability

Licensee to invitee

Answer 112

Even if a licensee has spontaneous business, the licensee does not necessarily become an invitee. The homeowner has to be in the business of doing that business.

Question 113

Duty/Premises Liability

Emergency Personnel and Utility Workers

Answer 113

Generally, emergency personnel and utility workers are going to be licensees. Varies by state.

Question 114

Duty/Premises Liability

Status: Invitee

Answer 114

One who either (1) enters land by express or implied invitation to conduct business with the owner or (2) enters for purposes for which the land is held open to the public

Question 115

Duty/Premises Liability

Invitees: duty owed

Answer 115

Duty to (1) warn of known latent dangers, (2) exercise reasonable care in active operations, and (3) use care to insepct and repair dangerous conditions

Question 116

Duty/Premises Liability

Invitee: exception

Answer 116

The exception to the duty owed to invitees is found in recreational use statutes. If an owner/occupier of open land permits the public to use the land for rereational purposes without charging a fee, the landowner is not liable for injuries suffered by a recreational user, unless the landowner willfully or maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity.

Question 117

Duty/Premises Liability

Is an invitee required to buy anything before becoming an invitee?

Answer 117

No

Question 118

Duty/Premises Liability

What duty is owed to invitees who are injured?

Answer 118

If an owner sees an invitee injured on the property, there is a duty to call for help.

Question 119

Duty/Premises Liability

Invitee: Known or obvious dangers exceptions (4)

Answer 119

Generally, no duty for known or obvious dangers. There is a duty to exercise reasonable care if it is foreseeable that the plaintiff will:
1. Be distracted
2. Forget
3. Not see
4. Elect to encounter

Question 120

Duty/Premises Liability

Obligation to an invitee does not include . . .

Answer 120

Heroic measures like jumping in front of a bullet.

Question 121

Duty/Premises Liability

Protection of Entrants from Third Party Criminal Activity

Answer 121

Genearlly, nobody is required to protect a third party from criminal activity unless they know about it. If the owner is on notice that there is a particular criminal activity, there may or likely will be an obligation to protect invitees from that particular crime.

Question 122

Duty/Premises Liability

Duties to people outside owner’s land (natural conditions)

Answer 122

There is no duty unless (1) the possessor or anyone else has ever altered the natural condition so as to aggravate the risk and (2) in urban area, where trees are near public streets which pose an unreasonable risk of harm to those on the street

Duty is excepted if tree fall or breaks due to some unforeseen or unknown circumstance.

Question 123

Duties to people outside owner’s land (artificial conditions)

Answer 123

There is no duty except to maintain buildings, fences, and the like that abut other land/streets so as not to pose an unreasonable risk of harm to those outside the land.

Question 124

Duty/Premises Liability

Responsibility for Entrant Between Tenant and Landlord

Answer 124

A lessor who is not in possession of property is not liable for failure to prevent injury to a tenant or the tenant’s guest. Once a renter signs a lease and moves in, that renter is responsible as the possessor for any injury to someone inside the rented space.

Question 125

Duty/Premises Liability

Exceptions to Landlord/Tenant Rule (6)

Answer 125

1. Undisclosed dangerous conditions known to the lessor
2. Conditions dangerous to persons outside the premises
3. Premises leased for admission of the public
4. Common areas under the lessor’s control
5. Contract or promise to repair
6. Negligence by the lessor in making repair

Question 126

NIED

NIED general rule

Answer 126

NIED allows recovery for mental suffering. For a claim of NIED to prevail, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant, through an act of negligence (proved by presence of a duty and breach), caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, that the distress was genuine, and that the plaintiff was the primary victim or bystander who is entitled to recovery of damages.

Question 127

NIED

NIED negligence statement

Answer 127

Negligence is carelessness. Negligence is established by proving that the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff (or a third party) which the defendant then breached. Duty is an obligation based on relationship that one person will not place the other in risk of foreseeable and unreasonable harm. Once a duty is established, breach can be determined if the person that owed the duty fails to act as a reasonable, prudent person would under the circumstances. The reasonable, prudent person is neither super cautious nor inattentive to risks.

Question 128

NIED

NIED factual cause statement

Answer 128

Once the plaintiff has showing that the defendant has acted negligently, she must show that the negligence was the cause in fact of the severe emotional distress. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have suffered severe emotional distress.

Question 129

NIED

NIED prox cause statement

Answer 129

After proving factual causation, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was the proximate cause, or legal cause, of the harm. The question is whether the harm to the plaintiff was so remote, so unforeseeable, so bizarre, that holding the defendant liable is unfair. A defendant is generally only liable for consequences which are reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability focuses on whether the defendant should have reasonably foreseen, as a risk of her conduct, the general type of harm suffered by the plaintiff. However, the result must be within the risk created by the defendant’s conduct and foreseeability is not sufficient to create liability if the harm is too tenuous and remote.

Question 130

NIED

NIED genuine severe emotional distress statement

Answer 130

The plaintiff must then show that the severe emotional distress was genuine. Emotional distress includes, but is not limited to, suffering, anguish, fear, anxiety, grief, and shock. Traditionally, the genuineness of emotional distress could only be proved through the plaintiff first suffering a physical impact. However, courts now allow emotional distress damages to be proven by (1) physical consequences which manifest as a result of the emotional distress, (2) an invasion of a legally protected interest (i.e. bodily autonomy or privacy), (3) other compelling facts, and (4) other evidence.

Question 131

NIED

NIED direct claims general statement

Answer 131

The plaintiff must also prove that she was the primary victim or a bystander entitled to recovery. For direct claims of primary victims, the plaintiff traditionally had to prove that she suffered a physical harm followed by emotional distress. However, the majority rule allows recovery for mental distress if the plaintiff was at risk of impact. In other words, that the plaintiff was within the zone of danger. The plaintiff must be aware that she is within the zone of danger at the time it occurred.

Question 132

NIED

bystander claims general statement (majority)

Answer 132

The plaintiff must also prove that she was the primary victim or a bystander entitled to recovery. Bystander claims, also known as indirect claims, arise out of a third party observing someone else being negligently injured by the defendant. The majority of courts allow recovery for all foreseeable plaintiffs who witness the injury of a close relative, where the plaintiff was also in a position to fear for her own safety (in the zone of danger).

Question 133

NIED

bystander claims minority rule

Answer 133

Extends right of bystander to recovery where they were not at physical risk themselves. Three factors considered: (1) whether PL was near the scene, (2) whether PL observed the incident contemporaneously, (3) whether PL and victim were closely related

Question 134

Alcohol Related Injuries

Traditional view (minority)

Answer 134

At common law, neither sellers of liquor nor social hosts were liable to those injured by those to whom they served alcohol.

Question 135

Alcohol Related Injuries

Dram shop - modern view (majority)

Answer 135

The majority view still limits the liability of commercial vendors of alcohol, unless the vendor serves a person who is visibly intoxicated or someone underage. Social hosts are generally not responsible for the actions of those who drink alcohol in their homes.

Question 136

NIED

Alternatives for recovering emotional distress damages

Answer 136

1. Loss of consortium
2. Wrongful death
3. breach of fiduciary duty

Question 137

Strict Liability

General rule

Answer 137

Strict liability is liability without fault. To establish a claim of strict liability, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was an act (by the defendant) for which the law imposes a duty to make absolute safe and harm resulting from a breach of that duty, factual causation, proximate causation, and damages.

Question 138

Strict Liability

Duty/breach general statement

Answer 138

With negligence, duty is an obligation based on relationship, and the defendant breaches that duty when he fails to act with reasonable care. Strict liability, however, essentially provides the elements of duty and breach without an investigation into reasonableness. With strict liability, the duty of the defendant is based on the defendant’s undertaking of a particular activity for which the law imposes an absolute duty to make safe, such as keeping dangerous animals and carrying out abnormally dangerous activities. Meanwhile, breach is simply the occurrence of the harm. Therefore . . .

Question 139

Strict liability

Factual cause general statement

Answer 139

Next, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s activity was the factual cause of the plaintiff’s injury. In other words, the plaintiff’s injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s undertaking of the dangerous activity.

Question 140

Strict liability

Proximate cause general statement

Answer 140

After proving factual cause, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s activity was the proximate cause, or legal cause, of the plaintiff’s injury. The question is whether the plaintiff’s injury was so remote, so unforeseeable, so bizarre that holding the defendant liable is unfair. With strict liability, the harm has to be something that could have been anticipated, and imposition of liability still has to be fair. The harm must be to a foreseeable plaintiff and a reasonably foreseeable event from the activity that made what the defendant was doing to be considered dangerous.

Question 141

Strict liability

Vicarious liability general statement

Answer 141

Strict liability imposes liability without fault. Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability in that it holds a defendant liable for another’s tortious conduct, regardless of the defendant’s fault, due to a special relationship between the two such as family relationships, employment relationships, or joint ventures.

Question 142

Strict liability

Employer liability/respondeat superior

Answer 142

To successfully invoke the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds an employer vicariously liable for an employee’s negligent acts, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance fo the evidence, that a negligent act was committed by the defendant’s employee and within the scope of employment.

Question 143

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Employee

Answer 143

The plaintiff must prove that the tortfeasor was an employee of the defendant/employer at the time of the act. Generally, courts consider whether the employer had the right to control and the degree of that control of the employee’s behavior.

Question 144

Strict Liability/respondeat superior

Scope of employment

Answer 144

The plaintiff must then prove that the employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the negligent act. Generally, courts consider whether the conduct was consistent with the intent to beenfit the employer

Question 145

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Effect of violating company rules

Answer 145

An employee’s tortious conduct may be considered within the scope of employment even if it violates a company rule prohibiting such conduct.

Question 146

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Commute

Answer 146

Commuting to work is outside the scope of employment.

Question 147

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Frolic and detour

Answer 147

Where an employee makes a detour for personal reasons on a business trip and causes damages, traditionally, an employer is liable only if the accident occurred while the employee was returning to the business route after ending the personal business. However, today’s courts will generally hold the employer liable if the detour is reasonably foreseeable. A factor used to determine the foreseeability of the detour is the distance of the detour, also known as the slight deviation rule.

Question 148

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Business partners

Answer 148

Business partners are vicariously liable for torts committed within the scope of the partnership.

Question 149

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Intentional torts

Answer 149

Employers are not liable for an employee’s intentionally tortious conduct, unelss the tortfeasor was somehow furthering the business purposes of the employer in the commission of the tortious act.

Question 150

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Independent contractors

Answer 150

A principal is not ordinarily liable for harm caused by an independent contractor.

Question 151

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Independent contractors exceptions (3)

Answer 151

A principal may be liable if:
1. the duty of the employer to do a particular act was rendered a non-delegable duty by statute and public policy.
2. the work carried out by the independent contractor involved ultrahazardous, abnormally dangerous activity.
3. where an employer negligently selects an incompetent cnotractor.

Question 152

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Examples of non-delegable duties

Answer 152

• Work contemplated requires special precautions
• Work to be done in a public place
• Construction or maintenance of buildings in the principal’s possession
• Instrumentalities used in highly dangerous activities
• Work subject to safety requirements imposed by legislation
• Work is inherently dangerous
• Work involves abnormally dangerous activities

Question 153

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Negligent hiring

Answer 153

If unable to pursue strict vicarious liability of an employer, a plaintiff may pursue a claim of negligent hiring. This action requires a showing that the principal had actual or constructive notice of the agent’s incompetence and that the injury complained of resulted from that incompetence.

Question 154

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Apparent/ostensible agency

Answer 154

A principal may be liable for the torts of an independent contractor so long as the tortfeasor acted with apparent/ostensible agency. Apparent agency requires (1) that the plaintiff reasonably believed that the tortfeasor was an agent of the defendant, (2) that the belief was caused by the defendant’s conduct, and (3) that the plaintiff detrimentially relied on the belief.

Question 155

Strict liability/respondeat superior

Indemnification

Answer 155

The employer can sue the tortfeasor employer and seek indemnification (payment) for 100% of what it paid out, so long as the employer does not have independent negligence.

Question 156

Strict liability

Workers’ Compensation

Answer 156

Workers’ compensation is a statutory substitute for tort law which imposes strict liability for on the job accidents. Compensation is certain, but less generous than tort damages.

Question 157

Strict liability/workers’ compensation

Coworkers/employers/third parties

Answer 157

A covered worker’s employer and fellow employees are made immune from claims for negligence and usually recklessness. Intentional tort claims and actions against coworkers and third parties are not barred.

Question 158

Strict liability

Family purpose doctrine (purpose)

Answer 158

The doctrine is an exception to the usual rule that parents are not vicariously liable for the torts of their children in the absence of employment relations, joint enterprise, or knowledge of past tortious behaviors. The parent may of course be liable for his or her own tort in failing to control a minor child.

Question 159

Strict liability

Family purpose doctrine, generally

Answer 159

To successfully invoke the family purpose doctrine, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was the owner of the car driven by the tortfeasor child and that the defendant provided the child with the car and gave consent (express or implied) for the child to drive the car for the authorized purpose which is typically general use by family members.

Question 160

Strict liability/animals

Wild animals, general rule

Answer 160

A possessor will be held strictly liable for harm caused by a wild animal. A wild animal is one not generally domesticated and likely to cause injury when unrestrained.

Question 161

Strict liability/animals

Fear of wild animals

Answer 161

Fear of unrestrained wild animals can be one of the dangerous propensities imposing strict liability.

Question 162

Strict liability/animals

Exceptions to wild animals rules (2)

Answer 162

Exceptions to the general of imposing strict liability for harm by wild animals:
1. Where the wild animal is kept under a public duty, like a zoo or national park, strict liability will not usually apply. The plaintiff must show negligence but the defendant is held to a higher standard of care.
2. Where the plaintiff did something consciously to provoke the injury.

Question 163

Strict liability/animals

Domestic animals, general rule

Answer 163

A possessor will be held strictly liable for injuries caused by dangerous domestic animals. Domestic animals are those used in the service of mankind, like cats and dogs.

Question 164

Strict liability/animals

Dangerous propensities

Answer 164

Dangerous propensities do not necessarily have to be that the animal is mean or aggressive. It can be satisfied by friendly behaviors that are dangerous, like a large dog jumping up to greet people.

Question 165

Strict liability/animals

Exception to domestic animals rules: trespassers

Answer 165

To trespassers, a landowner/animal owner may generally not be held to a strict liability standard. The trespasser must show that the possessor acted negligently in the injury, as where the landowner knew that a trespasser was on the land and the owner failed to warn the trespasser of the animal.

Question 166

Strict liability/animals

Exception to the trespasser exception: the watchdog

Answer 166

Where the possessor/landowner has reason to know that a vicious watchdog is likely to cause serious bodily harm, the possessor may be striclty liable to the trespasser, based upon the intentional tort principle that a landowner is not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.

Question 167

Strict liability/animals

Livestock

Answer 167

An owner or possessor of livestock or other animals, except for dogs or cats, that intrude upon the land of another is subejct to strict liability for physical harm caused by the intrustions. Livestock hit by motorists are typically held to a negligence standard.

Question 168

Strict liability/animals

One bite rule

Answer 168

Mostly abolished, the one bite rule allows an owner to escape liability if it is the first instance of a dog bite.

Question 169

Strict liability/abnormally dangerous activities

General rule

Answer 169

An actor who carries out an abnormally dangerous, ultrahazardous activity is subject to strict liability for harm resulting from that activity, regardless of whether reasonable care was exercised to prevent harm.

Question 170

Strict liability/abnormally dangerous activities

Examples of abnormally dangerous activities (4)

Answer 170

1. blasting
2. manufacturing, storing, and using explosive or flammable materials
3. oil well drilling
4. crop dusting

Question 171

Strict liability/abnormally dangerous activities

Third restatement definition for abnormally dangerous activities

Answer 171

In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, consider the seriousness and frequency of harm, whether the activity is appropriate to the locale, and the plaintiff’s conduct

Question 172

Strict liability/abnormally dangerous activities

Second restatement factors for determining abnormally dangerous activity (6)

Answer 172

1. Whether the activity involves a high degree of risk;
2. The gravity of that risk;
3. Whether the risk can be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care;
4. Whether the activity is a mater of common usage;
5. Whether the activity is appropriate to the locale; and
6. The value of the activity to the community.

Question 173

Products liability/negligence

Negligence theory generally

Answer 173

Negligence-based products liability is based on a manufacturer’s breach of the reasonable standard of care in failing to make a product safe. It is a cause of action based upon the reasonable action of the manufacturer.

Question 174

Products liability/negligence

Duty generally

Answer 174

The manufacturer’s duty is established by the relationship between the manufacture of the product and the consumer’s purchase of that product.

Question 175

Products liability/negligence

Breach generally

Answer 175

A manufacture musst exercise due care in designing products, manufacturing and assembling products, inspecting and testing products, and placing adequate warning labels.

Question 176

Products liability/negligence

Negligence per se

Answer 176

Manufacturers who violate state or federal law in the manufacturing or labeling of a product may be subject to negligence per se.

Question 177

Products liability/negligence

Privity of contract

Answer 177

No privity of contract is required between plaintiff and manufacterer in negligence. Liability extends to any person’s injuries caused by a negligently made, defective product, but the injury must still be foreseeable.

Question 178

Products liability/negligence

Generaly rule statement

Answer 178

In general, the defendant is liable for negligence in manufacturing or selling any product that, if defective, can reasonably be expected to be capable of inflicting substantial harm, as long as the defendant’s act constitutes a failure to exercise due care, and the product in fact causes harm.

Question 179

Products liability/negligence

Negligent failure to warn

Answer 179

As to negligent failure to warn, a failure to warn is neglgient if it involves an inherent danger in the product’s design or intended use of which the consumer is likely to be unaware, and the unheralded danger causes harm.

Question 180

Products liability/negligence

Manufacturing flaw

Answer 180

A manufacturing flaw is a condition different from that which was intended

Question 181

Products liability/negligence

Suing multiple defendants

Answer 181

If suing a manufacturer under negligence theory, think about the product chain. If suing all in the product chain, every single defendant must have been independently negligent.

Question 182

Products liability/negligence

Known and obvious dangers

Answer 182

There is no duty to warn of obvious dangers to be known by expected uses or to warn concerning unforeseeable misuse.

Question 183

Products liability/strict liability

Requirements for strict liability (just the terms) (6)

Answer 183

1. Defect
2. Control
3. Changes
4. Business
5. Causation
6. Privity not requires

Defendant Can’t Conceal Bad Commercial Products

Question 184

Products liability/strict liability

Requirements: Defect

Answer 184

The product must have been in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user/consumer or his property

Question 185

Products liability/strict liability

Requirements: Control

Answer 185

When it left the defendant’s control

Question 186

Products liability/strict liability

Requirements: Changes

Answer 186

The product must not undergo significant changes before it gets to the user

Question 187

Products liability/strict liability

Requirements: Business

Answer 187

The seller must be in the business of selling the product

Question 188

Products liability/strict liability

Requirements: Causation

Answer 188

Damage must result from the defect

Question 189

Products liability/strict liability

Requirements: Privity not required

Answer 189

Duty extends to anyone foreseeably endangered by the product

Question 190

Products liability/strict liability

Defective product general definition

Answer 190

A defective product is one which is in condition that is unreasonably dangerous to users

Question 191

Products liability/strict liability

Third restatement types of defects (just naming) (3)

Answer 191

1. Manufacturing defects
2. design defects
3. Inadequate warnings

Question 192

Products liability/strict liability

Manufacturing defects

Answer 192

When a product is produced different from other identical products and is more dangerous due to the way it was made

Question 193

Products liability/strict liability

Design defects

Answer 193

Where all of the products are made the same, but a dangerous condition of each product has dangerous propensities because of unique features or packaging which makes the entire product line defective because of poor design

Question 194

Products liability/strict liability

Inadequate warnings

Answer 194

A type of design defect, but a situation where the product may not be in any way defective, but the product fails to contain effective and clear warnings of any dangers that may not be apparent to users.

Question 195

Products liability/strict liability

Types of warnings/audiences

Answer 195

The warning has to be gauged to the audience and understandable to the primary audience (sophisticated audience warnings v. inexperienced audience warnings)

Question 196

Products liability/strict liability

Consumer expectation test (minority)

Answer 196

Product must be dangerous beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary adult consumer who purchases the product, with the ordinary knowledge common to the ocmmunity as to its characteristics, which has been interpreted to mean that the product must be more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when the product is used in its intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Typically only used for food products now.

Question 197

Products liability/strict liability

Risk/Utility Test (majority)

Answer 197

The plaintiff is generally required to show that the risk of the product outweighs the utility of the product.

Question 198

Products liability/strict liability

Risk/utility test demonstrated by

Answer 198

Often demonstrated by expert testimony showing that there exists a feasible alternative design such that the product in its present form was unreasonably dangerous.

Question 199

Products liability/strict liability

Risk/utility test defense

Answer 199

The defendant can defend with “state of the art” evidence showing that the product could not have been designed any sager at the time it was manufactures and that any risk that the product posed was unknown to the manufacturer or reasonably scientifically unknowable at the time the product was designed and manufactured.

Question 200

Products liability/strict liability

Risk/utility test factors (7)

Answer 200

1. Utility of the product to the public and individual user
2. Nature of the product/likelihood to cause injury
3. Availability of a safer design
4. Potential for designing so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced
5. Ability of Plaintiff to have avoided injury by careful use of product
6. Degree of awareness of potential danger of the product which reasonably can be attributed to the plaintiff
7. Ability to spread any cost related to improving safety of the design

Question 201

Products liability/strict liability

Leased/bailed goods

Answer 201

Strict product liability may extend to leased or bailed goods, proivded the defendant is in the business of such transactions

Question 202

Products liability/strict liability

Services/pharmaceuticals

Answer 202

Strict product liability generally does not extend to services or pharmaceuticals

Question 203

Products liability/strict liability

Blood shield statutes

Answer 203

Strict product liability generally does not apply to blood products, usually only negligence will apply in such situations

Question 204

Products liability/strict liability

Real estate

Answer 204

New homes may be seen as products for the purposes of strict products liability. Jurisdiction dependent.

Question 205

Products liability/strict liability

Used products

Answer 205

Strict product liability can be extended to used products, but the reasonable expectation of a consumer may be adjusted by what would be reasonably expected of a used product which is defective.