STRICT LIABILITY

Question 1

Strict Liability Intro and formula

Answer 1

If strict liability applies, D is liable for damages caused to P regardless of the D’s wrongful intent or failure to exercise reasonable care. Strict liability effectively substitutes for “duty” and “breach” in the negligence formula:
1. Absolute Duty - a D has an absolute duty where D:
a. keeps wild or other dangerous animals;
b. engages in an abnormally dangerous (ultra hazardous) activity; OR
c. supplies defective products…
2. Causation: and that dangerous propensity, hazard, or defect causes (factual and proximate cause)
3. Damages: P’s injury.

Question 2

ANIMALS

Answer 2

If strict liability applies, D is liable for damages caused to P regardless of the D’s wrongful intent or failure to exercise reasonable care. Strict liability effectively substitutes for “duty” and “breach” in the negligence formula:
1. Absolute Duty - a D has an absolute duty where D:
a. keeps wild or other dangerous animals;
b. engages in an abnormally dangerous (ultra hazardous) activity; OR
c. supplies defective products…
2. Causation: and that dangerous propensity, hazard, or defect causes (factual and proximate cause)
3. Damages: P’s injury.

s”? D owns, possesses, harbors, OR controls at time of injury.
* “Wild” vs. “Domestic”? Domestic animals are those customarily “devoted to the service of mankind” in the local community. Wild animals are everything else.
* “Dangerous Propensity”? Means an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a certain way (e.g., tigers claw, bees sting, pythons constrict). Note “dangerousness” is not limited to aggressive behavior (e.g., overly playful 100 lb. dog jumps to lick P causing fall).
* “Caused by … Propensity”? For both wild and domestic, the animal’s dangerous propensity must be factual + proximate cause of P’s harm.
* Except: P’s Panic re: Wild Animals: For wild animals, if average person fears species and P panics resulting in P’s physical injury (e.g., heart attack), D is liable even when feared harm eliminated (e.g., P faints and hits head upon seeing defanged cobra).

Question 3

ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES

Answer 3

One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for the injuries caused to a person, chattel, and land of another resulting from that activity, even if he has exercised reasonable care.

Case: flooded mine coal

Question 4

What are the elements to determine when an activity is abnormally dangerous to trigger strict liability?

Answer 4

1. high degree of risk
2. risk of serious harm
3. due care will not eliminate
4. not a common usage
5. appropriateness of the place
6. value to community

Question 5

Limitation on strict liability

Answer 5

for strict liability to apply, P must show that the risk associated with D’s abnormally dangerous activity was the proximate cause of P’s injuries. In addition, because strict liability requires proximate cause, if does not apply if the risk to which P is exposed was not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 6

Products liability rule

Answer 6

A seller (vertical chain of distribution=distributors, retailer, manufacturers) of a product with a defect unreasonably dangerous to the user or customer is strictly liable for injuries to persons or property proximately caused by the said defect.

Question 7

how do you establish the manufacturer’s liability?

Answer 7

to establish manufacturer’s liability, is sufficient for P to show that he was injured while using the manufacturer’s product in a way it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in the design or manufacture of which P was not aware.

Question 8

what are the different type of defects?

Answer 8

1. manufacturing defect
2. design defect
3. failure to warn about risk associated with the use of the product

Question 9

manufacturing defect

Answer 9

Under the manufacturing (bad apple) theory, P must prove either that the product deviated from the manufacturer’s intended design or deviated from D’s other products of the same design, and no substantial alteration have been made before the time of sale. BUT P does not have to prove the specific conduct by the manufacturer that led to the defect in the particular product that injured P.

Question 10

design defect

Answer 10

under the design defect theory (bad barrel) P must prove that the design choice had rendered the entire product line unreasonable dangerous. A design choice is unreasonable if the likelihood + the severity of the injury caused by the design choice, under the foreseeable use of the product, outweighs the cost/burden of using an alternative design that would have decreased or prevented injury.

Question 11

Risk utility test - whether a design choice renders a product unreasonably dangerous

Answer 11

1. relative utility,
2. relative safety,
3. safer alternative,
4. practicability (the manufacturer’s ability to reduct the unsafe aspect of the product without increasing the utility/price).
5. user’s awareness of the product’s dangers.

Question 12

warning defect

Answer 12

under the failure to warn theory, P’s injury were caused by the D’s inadequacy to warn/instruct, that D knew or should have known about the risk of harm and could have avoided w/instruction/warings, the omissions of which rendered the product unsafe.

Question 13

defenses available to strict liability:

Answer 13

comparative fault
assumption of risk
unforeseeable misuse
unforeseeable modification
preemption