Strict Liability

Question 1

CJ rationale for strict liability

Answer 1

One caused harm less innocent and should compensate

Question 2

CQ rationale for strict liability

Answer 2

Internalize all externalities for betterment of society (instead of placing abnormal risk on those who haven’t opted in assumed cost of business)

Question 3

—- affirmative defense barring recovery for strict liability

Answer 3

AR/Consent unless secondary AR

Question 4

Strict liability means

Answer 4

Liable irrespective of level of care

Question 5

Four islands of strict liability

Answer 5

Vicarious liability, wild or abnormally dangerous animals, abnormally dangerous activities, products liability

Question 6

For the first three islands of strict liability, must show —

Answer 6

Factual and legal cause

Question 7

Bushey is about

Answer 7

Respondeat superior/Vicarious liability

Question 8

Policy behind Bushey

Answer 8

Certain injuries are risks characteristic of an enterprise so holding employer strictly liable for them not unfair

Question 9

Rationale for Vicarious liability 1

Answer 9

Incentivizes employer to control employees to discourage tortious acts

Question 10

Rationale for Vicarious liability 2

Answer 10

Employer capable of spreading loss to all parties that benefit from the activity

Question 11

Rationale for Vicarious liability 3

Answer 11

Fairness, no liability could be windfall for employer/ unfair costs on injured parties who plausibly didn’t opt in

Question 12

Bushey reasoning

Answer 12

Foreseeable that crew members crossing the drydock might do damage negligently or even intentionally

Question 13

RST Wild Animals

Answer 13

If possess wild animal, SL for physical harm caused by wild animal

Question 14

RST definition of wild animal

Answer 14

Category of animals not generally been domesticated and that are likely unless restrained to cause injury

Question 15

Rhodes is about

Answer 15

Domesticated animals

Question 16

Rhodes holding

Answer 16

If animal not naturally inclined to commit mischief, owner not SL for injuries that occur when the animal is rightfully where it is

Question 17

Rhodes says domesticated animal only liable for negligence if .

Answer 17

Animal is vicious and owner has knowledge of that fact

Question 18

RST abnormally dangerous animals

Answer 18

Possess animal and know/reason to know it has dangerous tendencies abnormal for the animals category = SL for physical harm caused by the animal if the harm ensues from that dangerous tendency

Question 19

RST comment on abnormally dangerous animals

Answer 19

Many animals (even if no abnormal tendency) still involve some level of risk so possessor can potentially be held liable for negligence

Question 20

Spano is about ..

Answer 20

Abnormally dangerous business

Question 21

Spano holding

Answer 21

No negligence but one who engages in blasting liable without any fault for any injury he causes to neighboring property

Question 22

Spano reasoning

Answer 22

Most Jdx, internalize costs of business

Question 23

RST abnormally dangerous activities

Answer 23

If carry out ADA liability for harm to person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity although exercised utmost care to prevent the harm

Question 24

SL for ADA only for

Answer 24

Kind of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous

Question 25

Activity is abnormally dangerous if

Answer 25

Creates foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors AND activity not one of common usage

Question 26

Indiana Harbor Belt RR is about ..

Answer 26

Abnormally dangerous activities NoT substances

Question 27

Indiana RR facts

Answer 27

D manufacturers substance and had it transported via railroad

Question 28

Indiana Harbor Belt RR holding

Answer 28

CL default of negligence, SL only if activity such that great risk of harm even when reasonable care

Question 29

Indiana Harbor Belt RR reasoning 1

Answer 29

If a tank care is carefully maintained the danger is negligible so no SL

Question 30

Indiana Harbor Belt RR reason 2

Answer 30

Manufacturer not engaged in ADA merely because the product becomes dangerous when it is handled after it leaves his premises even if the danger is foreseeable

Question 31

Indiana Harbor Belt RR reason 3

Answer 31

Harm likely result of negligence by those involved with transport

Question 32

Products liability evolved because

Answer 32

Now obtain products from people other than manufacturers and K liability not good enough to prevent harm

Question 33

MacPherson takeaway

Answer 33

No privity requirement

Question 34

Escola takeaway

Answer 34

Res ipsa applies, SL for manufacturing defects

Question 35

Escola reasoning

Answer 35

Manufacturers can anticipate hazard and prevent in ways public cannot

Question 36

Temple takeaway

Answer 36

Because of modifications to safety devices, SL not apply

Question 37

RST Manufacturing defect

Answer 37

When departs from intended/consumer expected design even though all possible care exercised in prep and making of the product

Question 38

Speller is about ..

Answer 38

Circumstantial evidence in manufacturing defects

Question 39

Speller rule/RSTv

Answer 39

Defect can be inferred without proof of specific defect when incident kind that normally occurs as result of defect AND was not solely result of other causes than the defect existing at time of sale or distribution

Question 40

Speller holding

Answer 40

May prove by showing product didn’t perform as intended and excluding all other possible causes, P evidence raises triable issue of fact as to whether fire caused by fridge

Question 41

Hypo : Lean back to rest in car and seat collapses backward

Answer 41

Yes, kind that normally occurs due to defect

Question 42

Hypo - Decantur shatters when falls to floor

Answer 42

No not normally injury occurring from defect

Question 43

Speller case mostly issue when.

Answer 43

No direct evidence because product destroyed (not in warning/design because use token other product to prove)

Question 44

Barker rule

Answer 44

Design defect when less safe than consumer expectations when used as intended or reasonably foreseeable manner OR risk outweighs benefits and reasonable alternative design exists

Question 45

Wright concern with Barker test

Answer 45

Too much liability should be RU only

Question 46

Warning and Design are SL but ..

Answer 46

Look like negligence

Question 47

Warning defect when

Answer 47

Dangerous product with inadequate warning on how to use it which would reduce risk of foreseeable harms and render reasonably safe

Question 48

Liriano facts

Answer 48

Italian immigrant week after coming, operate meat grinder with safety guard removed, Hobart knew significant number of people removed

Question 49

Liriano takeaway

Answer 49

Should consider multiple functions of warnings

Question 50

Liriano holding

Answer 50

Grinder obviously dangerous but warning can provide info on how to minimize danger such that failure to include this information constitutes a defect

Question 51

Causation in Liriano

Answer 51

Zuchowicz approach, failure to warn greatly increased likelihood of harm enough for jury to infer causation and burden shifts to D

Question 52

Hood takeaway

Answer 52

Diminishing benefit to detail

Question 53

Hood holding

Answer 53

To add warning need to ask if benefits of more detail outweighs the cost (too long and technical people won’t read and understand)

Question 54

Hood holding

Answer 54

Here warnings about removing guard clear and numerous

Question 55

Why Defect and Warning still SL

Answer 55

If defective then SL, whether abnormally dangerous Q similar to negligence but if it is then SL