Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Torts > Strict Liability > Flashcards

Strict Liability Flashcards

1
Q

CJ rationale for strict liability

A

One caused harm less innocent and should compensate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

CQ rationale for strict liability

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

—- affirmative defense barring recovery for strict liability

A

AR/Consent unless secondary AR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Strict liability means

A

Liable irrespective of level of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Four islands of strict liability

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

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

A

Factual and legal cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bushey is about

A

Respondeat superior/Vicarious liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Policy behind Bushey

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Rationale for Vicarious liability 1

A

Incentivizes employer to control employees to discourage tortious acts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Rationale for Vicarious liability 2

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Rationale for Vicarious liability 3

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bushey reasoning

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

RST Wild Animals

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

RST definition of wild animal

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Rhodes is about

A

Domesticated animals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Rhodes holding

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Rhodes says domesticated animal only liable for negligence if .

A

Animal is vicious and owner has knowledge of that fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

RST abnormally dangerous animals

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

RST comment on abnormally dangerous animals

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Spano is about ..

A

Abnormally dangerous business

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Spano holding

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Spano reasoning

A

Most Jdx, internalize costs of business

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

RST abnormally dangerous activities

A

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

24
Q

SL for ADA only for

A

Kind of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous

25
Q

Activity is abnormally dangerous if

A

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

26
Q

Indiana Harbor Belt RR is about ..

A

Abnormally dangerous activities NoT substances

27
Q

Indiana RR facts

A

D manufacturers substance and had it transported via railroad

28
Q

Indiana Harbor Belt RR holding

A

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

29
Q

Indiana Harbor Belt RR reasoning 1

A

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

30
Q

Indiana Harbor Belt RR reason 2

A

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

31
Q

Indiana Harbor Belt RR reason 3

A

Harm likely result of negligence by those involved with transport

32
Q

Products liability evolved because

A

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

33
Q

MacPherson takeaway

A

No privity requirement

34
Q

Escola takeaway

A

Res ipsa applies, SL for manufacturing defects

35
Q

Escola reasoning

A

Manufacturers can anticipate hazard and prevent in ways public cannot

36
Q

Temple takeaway

A

Because of modifications to safety devices, SL not apply

37
Q

RST Manufacturing defect

A

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

38
Q

Speller is about ..

A

Circumstantial evidence in manufacturing defects

39
Q

Speller rule/RSTv

A

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

40
Q

Speller holding

A

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

41
Q

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

A

Yes, kind that normally occurs due to defect

42
Q

Hypo - Decantur shatters when falls to floor

A

No not normally injury occurring from defect

43
Q

Speller case mostly issue when.

A

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

44
Q

Barker rule

A

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

45
Q

Wright concern with Barker test

A

Too much liability should be RU only

46
Q

Warning and Design are SL but ..

A

Look like negligence

47
Q

Warning defect when

A

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

48
Q

Liriano facts

A

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

49
Q

Liriano takeaway

A

Should consider multiple functions of warnings

50
Q

Liriano holding

A

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

51
Q

Causation in Liriano

A

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

52
Q

Hood takeaway

A

Diminishing benefit to detail

53
Q

Hood holding

A

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

54
Q

Hood holding

A

Here warnings about removing guard clear and numerous

55
Q

Why Defect and Warning still SL

A

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

Torts (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions