Strict liability Flashcards
Strict liability
No fault requirement - P must only show elements and harm, due care is not a defense
Strict liability - animal ownership
If D keeps wild animal and P is injured by some characteristic behavior of the animal, D strictly liable no matter how foreseeable the harm
If D keeps a DOMESTIC animal, not liable unless D on notice of the danger. “Every dog gets one free bite”
Strict liability - abnormally dangerous activities
Activity is abnormally dangerous when:
- high risk of serious harm to others,
- cannot engage in activity without risk, and can’t eliminate risk w/o care, and
- activity not common in the community
If activity is abnormally dangerous, two element test:
- D was involved, and
- activity caused the harm
Proximate cause! Injury must have been caused by the risk that makes the activity dangerous
Defenses to strict liability claims
Contributory negligence: generally NO defense.
- exception: if P knew the danger and P’s action caused that danger to manifest, absolute bar (basically assumed risk)
Strict products liability
Top level: focus on condition of the product, not D’s conduct
Proper P: any user/consumer/bystander who is PHYSICALLY injured by defective product. No contract privity requirement
Proper D: commercial suppliers at ALL LEVELS of the distribution chain and those in the market selling - NO occasional sellers, service suppliers
Proper context: services alone not enough. When product and services both present, product must dominate
Elements:
Defect
Causation
Damages
Products liability - Defect (3 types)
Manufacturing defect (easiest): manufactured in form other than intended - P must show: product in condition not intended by manufacturer AND defect existed when leaving manufacturer's hands
Design defect: made as intended but still presents danger of injury because of flawed design. TWO tests:
- Ordinary consumer expectation: product more dangerous than would be contemplated by ordinary consumer
- Risk-utility balancing: jury determines if danger threatened by design outweighs its utility to society. Product defective if alt design could have reduced the danger at ~ same cost
Product warnings (2 tests)
P asserting warning is ineffective
- REASONABLENESS test. Does warning reasonably inform reader of risks AND how to reduce them? also consider placement, font, etc
P asserting no warning
- Manufacturer MUST warn about risks of which it knows or should know. Consider both gravity and chance: 1% chance of death? warn. 1% chance of tooth discoloration? nah
Products liability: causation (2 prongs)
Cause-in-fact: usually proven by showing defect that injured P existed at time it left D’s control
Proximate cause: look for superseding causes as usual. Did P alter product or use in unforeseeable way? Did a lower actor sell product despite knowing of danger?
Learned intermediary doctrine: if mfr’r provided warning to a doctor, can expect that doctor will pass on warning. If they don’t, they’re a superseding cause
Products liability: damages
Recoverable when there’s personal injury or property damage OTHER THAN to product itself. Consequential/subsequent econ losses after product is damaged also not enough
Defenses to products liability claims
Misuse: no liability for unintended, UNFORESEEABLE uses
Alteration: someone removes safety devices. Must happen after it leaves mfr’r custody
Assumption of the risk: P used product despite knowledge of risk
- e.g. machine injured once already, P doesn’t turn off sparking tv
NO contributory negligence, except as applied in assumption of the risk
SOME jx allow comparative negligence to reduce recovery
Failure to discover defect is never a defense
Products liability on negligence theory
Any foreseeable P can sue
Analyze conduct of each D to see if they acted reasonably - NOT on product itself
Res Ipsa Loquitor replaces manufacturing defect
All negligence defenses apply
