Strict Liability Flashcards
Domesticated Animals
An owner is not strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals (including farm animals) unless they have knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities that are not common to the species.
Injury caused by the normally dangerous characteristics of domestic animals (for example, bulls or honeybees) does not create strict liability.
NOTE: Landowner may be liable for an intentional tort for injuries inflicted by vicious watchdogs
Wild Animals
An owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals (even those kept as pets).
Strict liability will generally not be imposed in favor of trespassers. To recover for their injuries from a wild animal (or abnormally dangerous domestic animal) a trespasser must prove the owner’s negligence.
What is an Abnormally Dangerous Activity
(1) The activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
(2) The activity is not a matter of common usage in the community
Common examples: blasting or manufacturing explosives, storing or transporting dangerous chemicals, and anything involving radiation or nuclear energy.
What is someone liable for an abnormally dangerous activity?
The defendant’s liability extends only to foreseeable plaintiffs.
The harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity (or animal), including harm caused by fleeing from the perceived danger.
Strict liability does not apply when the injury is caused by something other than the dangerous aspect of the activity (e.g., a dynamite truck suddenly blows a tire and hits a pedestrian but does not explode).
The exercise of reasonable care is not a defense to strict liability
Different Theories of Liability for Products Liability
- Intent
- Negligence
- Implied warranties of merchantability/ fitness for a particular purpose
- Representation theories (express warranty and misrepresentation)
- Strict liability
Products Liability: Elements for Strict Liability
To find liability under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff must show:
(1) The defendant is a merchant (NOT a casual seller)
(2) The product is defective
- Manufacturing
- Design
- Information
(3) The product was not substantially altered since leaving the defendant’s control
- Normal channels of distribution do not “alter” the product
(4) The plaintiff was making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury
MANUFACTURING DEFECTS
If a product emerges from manufacturing different from and more dangerous than the products that were made properly
The defendant will be liable if the plaintiff can show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.
DESIGN DEFECTS
When all products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities.
Manufacturers will not be held liable for some dangerous products if the danger is apparent and there is no safer way to make the product (e.g., knives)
The plaintiff usually must show that there was a feasible alternative (product could have been made safer without serious impact on the product’s utility or price.)
A product’s noncompliance with government safety standards establishes that it is defective, but compliance with safety standards is not conclusive that the product is not defective.
INFORMATION DEFECTS
The manufacturer’s failure to give adequate instructions or warnings as to the risks involved in using the product that may not be apparent to users.
Warnings given to “learned intermediaries” (for example, the prescribing physician) will usually suffice in lieu of warnings to the patient.
Product’s Liability Based on Negligence
Same standard as negligence cases
An intermediary’s negligent failure to discover a defect does not supersede the original manufacturer’s negligence unless the intermediary’s conduct exceeds ordinary foreseeable negligence.
Plaintiff must show that those designing the product knew or should have known of enough facts to put a reasonable manufacturer on notice about the dangers of marketing the product as designed. Negligent design is NOT shown if the danger of the product becomes apparent only after the product reaches the public
Implied Warranties of Merchantability
whether the goods are of aver- age acceptable quality and are generally fit for the ordinary pur- pose for which the goods are used. Goods that are likely to injure users even when handled properly are quite obviously in breach of this warranty and will subject the seller(s) to liability.
Implied Warranties of Fitness for a Particular Purpose
When the seller knows or has reason to know the particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill and judgment in selecting the goods
Express Warranty
Any affirmation of fact or promise concerning goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty.
Misrepresentation of Fact Concerning a Product
A seller will be liable for misrepresentations of facts concerning a product where:
(1) The statement was of a material fact concerning quality or uses of goods (mere puffery insufficient)
(2) The seller intended to induce reliance by the buyer in a particular transaction
Liability is usually based on strict liability but may also arise for intentional or negligent misrepresentations.
Products Liability Overview
Strict Liability: The supplying of a defective product
Negligence: Negligent conduct that results in the supplying of a defective product
Implied Warranties:
- Merchantability: Sale of goods not generally acceptable or fit for ordinary purposes
- Fitness for a Particular Purpose: Sale of goods not fit for purpose that seller knows or has reason to know of (and knows that buyer is relying on seller’s judgment)
