Strict Liability

Question 1

What are the different strict liability causes of action

Answer 1

1) animals
2) abnormally dangerous activities
3) products liability

Question 2

Domesticated Animals

Answer 2

An owner is not strictly liable for injuries caused by domesticated 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 does not create strict liability

HOWEVER, an owner is strictly liable for the reasonably foreseeable damages done by trespass of his animals

Question 3

GA Dog Bite Statute

Answer 3

it has been interpreted as requiring the plaintiff to show that the animal’s owner had prior knowledge of the animal’s dangerous or vicious propensities.

the plaintiff can establish this by showing that the animal was required by ordinance to be at heel or on a leash, and the animal was not at heel or on a leash when the incident occurred.

Question 4

Wild Animals

Answer 4

An owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries cause by wild animals (even if kept as a pet)

However, strict liability generally will not be imposed in favor of trespassers. For trespassers to recover injuries from animals, they must prove the owner’s negligence

Question 5

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Answer 5

There are two requirements for finding an activity to be abnormally dangerous:

1) the activity creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
2) the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community

It Includes:
– blasting or explosives
– storing or transporting dangerous chemicals or biological matters
– nuclear energy or high dose radiation

NOTE - liability extends only to foreseeable plaintiffs, and the harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the activity

Question 6

What are the different theories of liability of products liability

Answer 6

1) Intent
2) negligence
3) implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose
4) representation (express warranty & misrepresentation)
5) strict liability

Question 7

Elements for Strict Products Liability

Answer 7

To find liability under strict products liability, the plaintiff must show:

1) the defendant is a merchant - a commercial supplier of the product;
2) the product is defective;
3) the product was not substantially altered since leaving the defendant’s control; and
4) the plaintiff was making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of injury

NOTE - anyone who is a supplier of the product in the supply chain can be held strictly liable

Question 8

GA Strict Products Liability

Answer 8

In GA, strict products liability is imposed only on manufacturers.

A distributor of a defective product is not strictly liable.

GA does not recognize the ostensible manufacturer doctrine - where the seller or distributor puts its name brand on a product actually manufactured by another - as a means of extending liability to a mere seller or distributor

Question 9

Strict Products Liability Scope

Answer 9

– any commercial supplier can be held liable (MBE)
– it does not extend to casual sellers
– it does not extend to the provision of services, even when a product is provided incident to the service
– it applies to suppliers who rent rather than sell products
– it includes the entire distribution chain (MBE)

NOTE - the plaintiff does not have to be in privity of contract with a supplier to recover

Question 10

What are the different types of defects

Answer 10

1) Manufacturing defect
2) Design defect
3) Information defect

Question 11

Manufacturing Defect

Answer 11

If a product emerges from manufacturing different from and more dangerous than the products that were made properly, it has a manufacturing defect.

The defendant will be liable if the plaintiff shows that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect - defendant must anticipate reasonable misuse.

Question 12

Design Defect

Answer 12

When all products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities, they may be found to have a design defect. This occurs when the risk of the product’s design outweighs its utility.

To be held liable, the plaintiff is required to show an alternative design that:
1) would have been safer
2) would have been a practical alternative
3) is economically viable

NOTE - manufacturers will not be held strictly liable for dangerous products if the danger is readily apparent and there is no safer way to make the product

Question 13

Effect of Government Safety Standards

Answer 13

A product’s noncompliance with government safety standards establishes that the product is defective.

However, compliance with safety standards is evidence, but not conclusive, that the product is not defective.

Question 14

Information Defects

Answer 14

A product may be defective as a result of 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 the user.

For warnings to be adequate:
1) they must be prominent - come to the attention of the user
2) they must be comprehensible - user must be able to understand the warnings
3) they must provide information about mitigating the risks

Prescription drugs and medical devices - warnings given to a learned intermediary (DR) will usually sufficient in lieu of warnings to the patient

CAUSATION - to show inadequate warnings were an actual cause of the injury, the plaintiff is entitled to a presumption that an adequate warning would have been read and heeded.

Question 15

Significant Alteration Presumption

Answer 15

The plaintiff must show that the product has not been significantly altered since it left the defendant’s control.

If the product moved through normal channels of distribution, it will be inferred the the product was not altered and that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control

Question 16

Misuse of Product

Answer 16

The plaintiff must have been making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury. However, a foreseeable use is not the same as an intended or appropriate use.

A defendant will only be relieved of liability when the harm resulted from an unforeseeable use.

Question 17

Nature of Damages (Strict Products Liability)

Answer 17

Physical injury or property damage must be shown. Recovery will be denied if the sole claim is for economic loss.

Question 18

Retailer Action (Strict Products Liability)

Answer 18

Negligence of an intermediary in not inspecting is foreseeable and does not break the chain of causation.

HOWEVER, the failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect may prevent establishing causation against a manufacturer if the intermediaries conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence (superseding cause)

Question 19

Right to Indemnification (Strict Products Liability)

Answer 19

When strict liability applies, each supplier of a defective product is liable to the injuries person, but each supplier has a right of indemnification against all PREVIOUS suppliers of the defective product, with the manufacturer of the product ultimately liable.

Question 20

Affirmative Defense to Strict Liability

Answer 20

Contributory Negligence State- it is no defense if the plaintiff failed to realize the danger or guard against it. It is a defense if the plaintiff knew of the danger and their unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm from the wild animal or abnormally dangerous activity or defective product

Assumption of risk is a good defense to strict liability

Comparative negligente states apply their comparative negligence rules to strict liability cases