Strict Liability Flashcards
What is strict liability?
strict liability means that an actor can be liable to a victim in tort without any showing of culpability.
In what three contexts does strict liability appear?
inherently dangerous activities,
* animals, or
* products liability
For purposes of strict liability, what is the inherently dangerous activity rule?
Strict liability is imposed for injuries foreseeably arising from the actor’s abnormally dangerous
activities if:
* the activity inherently creates a high risk of significant harm that cannot be eliminated,
even if all participants, including the victim, exercise reasonable care (e.g., blasting,
hauling explosives);
* the activity is unusual in the community where the injury occurs; and
* the victim’s injury arises from the particular characteristic of the activity that makes it
inherently dangerous.
For purposes of strict liability, what is the inherently dangerous activity rule?
Strict liability is imposed for injuries foreseeably arising from the actor’s abnormally dangerous
activities if:
* the activity inherently creates a high risk of significant harm that cannot be eliminated,
even if all participants, including the victim, exercise reasonable care (e.g., blasting,
hauling explosives);
* the activity is unusual in the community where the injury occurs; and
* the victim’s injury arises from the particular characteristic of the activity that makes it
inherently dangerous.
For strict liability purposes, how can a person be held liable for livestock animals?
A livestock possessor is strictly liable for any foreseeable personal injury or
property damage actually and proximately caused by livestock trespassing onto another’s
land. Foreseeability, of course, depends largely on the animal’s species (e.g., a hen versus
a bull). For strict liability to apply, governing law may require the victim to build a fence
to protect her land. Further, strict liability does not apply to livestock straying onto a
highway or onto abutting property from a highway
For strict liability purposes, how can a person be held liable for domesticated animals?
Usually, a domesticated animal’s possessor is strictly liable for personal injury
caused by the animal only if (1) the possessor knew or had reason to know that the
particular animal had a dangerous propensity uncommon for the animal’s species, and (2)
the victim’s harm arose from that propensity
For strict liability purposes, how can a person be held liable for domesticated animals?
Usually, a domesticated animal’s possessor is strictly liable for personal injury
caused by the animal only if (1) the possessor knew or had reason to know that the
particular animal had a dangerous propensity uncommon for the animal’s species, and (2)
the victim’s harm arose from that propensity
For strict liability purposes, how can a person be held liable for wild animals?
The keeper of a wild animal is strictly liable for any
harm resulting from the wild characteristics of the animal’s species, including harm
resulting from people’s foreseeable reactions to confronting a wild animal (e.g., fleeing in
panic at seeing a tiger that escaped a zoo)
For strict liability purposes, how can an actor be held liable for products?
Plaintiff must show that
1) The product was defective in manufacture, design, or information;
2) The defect existed when it left the defendants control and
3) the defect caused harm after being used in foreseeable way.
What is a manufacture defect in product strict liability?
A manufacturing defect is a physical departure from the product’s intended design,
rendering the product unreasonably dangerous 1) beyond the expectations of an ordinary, reasonable consumer (2) if used or
misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner..
What is a design defect in product strict liability?
A product has a design defect if (1) the product as designed is unreasonably dangerous (2)
if used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Courts generally use one or both
of two tests to identify a design defect: (1) the consumer-expectation test and (2) the
risk-utility test, also called the reasonable-alternative-design test.
What is the risk utility test used in design defect cases?
The risk-utility test finds a design defect if a reasonable alternative design would have
made the product safer. The proposed alternative design must:
* make the product safer in the aggregate, in that it would have reduced the risk of
the injury without increasing the danger in other situations;
* not substantially decrease the product’s usefulness for its intended purpose;
* be technically feasible, in that the manufacturer could have implemented it based
on then-existing scientific and technical knowledge; and
* be economically feasible, in that implementing the design would not impose
excessive costs relative to the reasonably foreseeable increase in safety.
What is an informational defect in products liability?
A product contains an informational defect if (1) it fails to include reasonable warnings or
instructions about reasonably foreseeable risks, and (2) the omission makes the product
unreasonably dangerous.
What is a reasonable warning in products liability cases (info defect)?
A reasonable warning must contain information about (1) the existence of any
reasonably foreseeable risk associated with using or misusing the product; (2) the
nature and scope of the risk; and (3) how the user can minimize or avoid the risk, if
possible. The warning must be formatted and positioned to attract the average user’s
attention.
What is the heeding presumption in informational defects?
To satisfy the causation requirement in cases of informational defects, some courts
rebuttably presume that the victim would have heeded any adequate warning given.
