Strict Liability Flashcards
CJ rationale for strict liability
One caused harm less innocent and should compensate
CQ rationale for strict liability
Internalize all externalities for betterment of society (instead of placing abnormal risk on those who haven’t opted in assumed cost of business)
—- affirmative defense barring recovery for strict liability
AR/Consent unless secondary AR
Strict liability means
Liable irrespective of level of care
Four islands of strict liability
Vicarious liability, wild or abnormally dangerous animals, abnormally dangerous activities, products liability
For the first three islands of strict liability, must show —
Factual and legal cause
Bushey is about
Respondeat superior/Vicarious liability
Policy behind Bushey
Certain injuries are risks characteristic of an enterprise so holding employer strictly liable for them not unfair
Rationale for Vicarious liability 1
Incentivizes employer to control employees to discourage tortious acts
Rationale for Vicarious liability 2
Employer capable of spreading loss to all parties that benefit from the activity
Rationale for Vicarious liability 3
Fairness, no liability could be windfall for employer/ unfair costs on injured parties who plausibly didn’t opt in
Bushey reasoning
Foreseeable that crew members crossing the drydock might do damage negligently or even intentionally
RST Wild Animals
If possess wild animal, SL for physical harm caused by wild animal
RST definition of wild animal
Category of animals not generally been domesticated and that are likely unless restrained to cause injury
Rhodes is about
Domesticated animals
Rhodes holding
If animal not naturally inclined to commit mischief, owner not SL for injuries that occur when the animal is rightfully where it is
Rhodes says domesticated animal only liable for negligence if .
Animal is vicious and owner has knowledge of that fact
RST abnormally dangerous animals
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
RST comment on abnormally dangerous animals
Many animals (even if no abnormal tendency) still involve some level of risk so possessor can potentially be held liable for negligence
Spano is about ..
Abnormally dangerous business
Spano holding
No negligence but one who engages in blasting liable without any fault for any injury he causes to neighboring property
Spano reasoning
Most Jdx, internalize costs of business
RST abnormally dangerous activities
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
SL for ADA only for
Kind of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous
Activity is abnormally dangerous if
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
Indiana Harbor Belt RR is about ..
Abnormally dangerous activities NoT substances
Indiana RR facts
D manufacturers substance and had it transported via railroad
Indiana Harbor Belt RR holding
CL default of negligence, SL only if activity such that great risk of harm even when reasonable care
Indiana Harbor Belt RR reasoning 1
If a tank care is carefully maintained the danger is negligible so no SL
Indiana Harbor Belt RR reason 2
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
Indiana Harbor Belt RR reason 3
Harm likely result of negligence by those involved with transport
Products liability evolved because
Now obtain products from people other than manufacturers and K liability not good enough to prevent harm
MacPherson takeaway
No privity requirement
Escola takeaway
Res ipsa applies, SL for manufacturing defects
Escola reasoning
Manufacturers can anticipate hazard and prevent in ways public cannot
Temple takeaway
Because of modifications to safety devices, SL not apply
RST Manufacturing defect
When departs from intended/consumer expected design even though all possible care exercised in prep and making of the product
Speller is about ..
Circumstantial evidence in manufacturing defects
Speller rule/RSTv
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
Speller holding
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
Hypo : Lean back to rest in car and seat collapses backward
Yes, kind that normally occurs due to defect
Hypo - Decantur shatters when falls to floor
No not normally injury occurring from defect
Speller case mostly issue when.
No direct evidence because product destroyed (not in warning/design because use token other product to prove)
Barker rule
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
Wright concern with Barker test
Too much liability should be RU only
Warning and Design are SL but ..
Look like negligence
Warning defect when
Dangerous product with inadequate warning on how to use it which would reduce risk of foreseeable harms and render reasonably safe
Liriano facts
Italian immigrant week after coming, operate meat grinder with safety guard removed, Hobart knew significant number of people removed
Liriano takeaway
Should consider multiple functions of warnings
Liriano holding
Grinder obviously dangerous but warning can provide info on how to minimize danger such that failure to include this information constitutes a defect
Causation in Liriano
Zuchowicz approach, failure to warn greatly increased likelihood of harm enough for jury to infer causation and burden shifts to D
Hood takeaway
Diminishing benefit to detail
Hood holding
To add warning need to ask if benefits of more detail outweighs the cost (too long and technical people won’t read and understand)
Hood holding
Here warnings about removing guard clear and numerous
Why Defect and Warning still SL
If defective then SL, whether abnormally dangerous Q similar to negligence but if it is then SL
