product liability Flashcards
strict products liability
a. a person injured using the product;
b. a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer;
c. a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, through
manufacturing defect, design defect, or inadequate warning;
d. causation; and
e. damages
warranty theory
a. a person to whom the warranty extends, including third parties who suffer injury;
(1) UCC implies a warranty of merchantability for goods
b. a breach of an express or implied warranty;
c. causation; and
d. damages
market share
a. each acting independently;
b. each manufacturing or selling a generic identical product; and
c. apportioning liability based on each defendant’s market share for that product
three causation theories
market share, alternative liability, joint enterprise
alternative liability
a. each acting independently;
b. only one of whom is responsible for negligent conduct; and
c. shifting the burden of proof of causation to defendants
joint enterprise
Partners and joint venturers are vicariously liable for each others’ torts if the torts were committed in the scope of the partnership or joint venture
when you see a product liability essay which two theories should you use? - manufacturing
1- strict liability; 2- warranty theory
types of defects
design, warning, or manufacturing
only defense for strict liability is
assumption of the risk
assumption of the risk defense requirements
subjective unlike contributory negligence, where the plaintiff has to know of the danger and knowingly expose himself to it
main hallmarks for strict liability
“defective” and “unreasonably dangerous”
if it was reasonably foreseeable that such a plaintiff might be injured by the defective product
rescuers and bystanders may be included in the strict liability action or may bring one themselves
if you sue the person operating the defective equipment you have to show
evidence of negligence by that person. only commercial people are strictly liable
design defect exists when
the product is designed as intended but the design renders the product unreasonably dangerous
consumer expectation test for design defect
a product is dangerously defective if a reasonably foreseeable purchaser would not have expected it to present the danger that resulted in his injury.
