Strict Liability Flashcards
Strict liability for domestic animals
An owner is not strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic 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
But landowner can be liable on intentional tort grounds for injuries inflicted by vicious watchdogs
Strict liability and trespassers
Strict liability is not available to trespassers
To recover for injuries from animals, a trespasser must prove the owner’s negligence
Strict liability for wild animals
An owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals
Liability for trespassing animals
An owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals
Abnormally dangerous activities
Two requirements for finding an activity to be abnormally dangerous
- activity creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
- the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community
Common examples of activities
- blasting or manufacturing explosives,
- storing or transporting dangerous chemicals or biological materials, and
- anything involving radiation or nuclear energy, high dose
Clearly dangerous or specifies that jurisdiction considers this a dangerous activity
Extent of defendant’s liability for dangerous activities- what plaintiffs and what harm
Defendant’s liability extends only to foreseeable plaintiffs
And 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
Does not apply when the injury is caused by something other than the dangerous aspect of it
Products liability generally
Refers to the liability of a supplier of a defective product to someone injured by the product
5 theories of liability that a pl may use
- intent
- negligence
- implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
- representation theories
- strict liability
If the question does not indicate what theory of liability the pl is using, apply a strict liability theory
Elements for strict liability in products liability (4)
The defendant is a merchant - commercial supplier of the product
- does not include casual sellers
Product is defective
Product was not substantially altered since leaving the defendant’s control
Plaintiff was making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury
Merchant for products liability and services
Strict liability only applies to goods, not services
- even when a product is provided incident to service, no strict liability
- but can sue in negligence
Merchant for products liability and lessors
Includes commercial lessors
- those who rent, rather than sell, can also be held strictly liable
Merchant for products liability and distribution chain
Includes entire distribution chain
- commercial suppliers include manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers
- privity is not required
Products liability and privity
In virtually all products liability actions, the fact that there was no contractual privity between the plaintiff and defendant will not prevent plaintiff from recovering
Still a favorite wrong choice in products liability based on negligence or strict liability
Any foreseeable plaintiff, including bystander can sue any commercial supplier in the chain of distribution regardless of an absence of a contractual relationship
Types of defects generally
Manufacturing defects
Design defects
Information defects
Manufacturing defect
Emerges from manufacturing different from and more dangerous than the products that were made properly
Plaintiff needs to show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
- the defendant must anticipate reasonable misuse
This also applies to defective food products
Design defects
All products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities, may be found to have a design defect
- risks associated with product’s design outweigh utility of design
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
Feasible alternative approach
Not really truly strict liability - form of negligence now
Feasible alternative design - design defects
Plaintiff usually must show alternative design
- would have been safer
- was practical alternative, utility
- was economically feasible, price
Compliance and noncompliance with government safety standards
A product’s noncompliance with government safety standards establishes that it is defective
Compliance with safety standards is evidence, but not conclusive, that the product is not defective
Information defects
A product may be defective as a result of the manufacture’s failure to give adequate instructions or warnings as to the risks involved in using the product that may not be apparent to users
- hidden risks without adequate warnings / instructions
- tend to test on whether the warnings are sufficient
For prescription drugs and medical devices, warnings given to learned intermediaries will usually suffice in lieu of warnings to the patient
When product left defendant’s control
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 that the product was not altered and that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control
Foreseeable use of product
The plaintiff must have been making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury
A defendant will not be held liable for dangers not forseeable at the time of marketing
Foreseeable use does not mean intended or appropriate use
- many products are commonly misused in ways that could be considered foreseeable
Adequacy of a warning
Prominent
Comprehensible
Provide information about mitigating risk
Damages recoverable in products liability
Physical injury or property damage must be shown
Recovery will be denied if the sole claim is for economic loss
Disclaimers and products liability
Disclaimers are irrelevant in strict liability cases if personal injury or property damages occur
Affirmative defenses
Traditional rule is knowingly encountering dangerous situation bars recovery
- only use this rule if traditional appears in the problem
Contributory negligence states
- no defense if the plaintiff has failed to realize the danger or guard against it
- but is a defense if pl knew of the danger and their unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm
Comparative negligence
- states apply their comparative negligence rules to strict liability
- use this unless question mentions traditional
Assumption of risk is a good defense to strict liability
Product liability on negligence theory
Negligence in a products case is proved the same as in a standard negligence case
Very difficult to hold the intermediaries liable for negligence
- 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
Opportunity to inspect
Products liability cases based on negligence require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect
- but not for strict liability
So, retailer in a strict liability action may be liable for a manufacturing or design defect simply for being a commercial supplier of that defective product, even if it had no opportunity to inspect the manufacturer’s product before selling it
Strict liability for products liability and intermediary discover defect
The failure of an intermediary to take action after discovering a dangerous defect may prevent establishing causation against a manufacturer in a strict products liability action
Same concepts of proximate cause apply to strict liability actions for defective products
