Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

July Exam - Torts > Strict Liability > Flashcards

Strict Liability Flashcards

1
Q

Domesticated Animals

A
  • owner not strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals (including farm animals) unless they have knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities that are not common to the species
  • injuries caused by normally dangerous characteristics (ex: those of honeybees or bulls) do NOT create strict liability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Trespassing Animals

A
  • owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by trespass of his animals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Wild Animals

A
  • owner is strictly liable to licensees + invitees for injuries caused by wild animals (even those kept as pets)
  • NOT strictly liable to trespassers though -> trespasser must prove negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Abnormally Dangerous Activities - Elements of Abnormally Dangerous

A

2 reqs:
- activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
- activity is not a matter of common usage in the community

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

Abnormally Dangerous Activities - Common Examples

A
  • blasting or manufacturing explosives
  • storing or transporting dangerous chemicals or biological materials
  • anything involving radiation or nuclear energy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Abnormally Dangerous Activity - Scope of Liability

A
  • only extends to foreseeable pls
  • harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity, including harm caused by fleeing from the perceived danger
    -> strict liability does not apply when the injury is caused by something other than the dangerous aspect of the activity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Theories of Product Liability

A

Five possibilities a pl can use:
- intent
- negligence
- implied warranties of merchantability + fitness for a particular purpose
- representation theories (express warranty and misrepresentation)
- strict liability

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

Products Liability - General Concept

A
  • refers to liability of a supplier of a defective product to someone injured by the product
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Products Liability - Elements for Strict Liability

A

Pl must show:
- def is a merchant (a commercial supplier of the product)
- product is defective
- product was not substantially altered since leaving def’s control
- pl was making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury

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

Strict Products Liability - Merchants

A
  • ANY commercial supplier can be held liable
    -> no casual sellers held liable though
  • doesn’t extend to services
  • includes commercial lessors (those who rent instead of selling product)
  • includes entire distribution chain (manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers)
    -> privity not required -> users, consumers + bystanders can sue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Strict Products Liability + Privity

A
  • privity NOT required
  • anyone, including a bystander, can sue any commercial supplier in the chain of distribution regardless of the absence of a contractual relationship between them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Types of Product Defects

A
  • manufacturing defect
  • design defect
  • information defect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Manufacturing Defects

A
  • if a product emerges from manufacturing different from + more dangerous than the products that were made properly, it has a manufacturing defect
  • def will be liable if pl can show the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
  • def must anticipate reasonable misuse
  • applies to defective food products
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Design Defects

A
  • when all products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities, they may be found to have a design defect
  • manufacturers not held liable for some dangerous products (ex: knives) if danger apparent + no safer way to make the product
  • pl usually must show def could’ve made the product safer, w/o serious impact on product’s utility or price (“feasible alternative” approach)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Government Safety Standards

A
  • product’s noncompliance w/ gov safety standards establishes that it is defective, while compliance w/ safety standards is evidence, but NOT conclusive, that the product is not defective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Information Defects

A
  • product may be defective as result of manufacturer’s failure to give adequate instructions or warnings as to the risks involved in using the product that may not be apparent to users
  • for prescription drugs + medical devices, warnings given to “learned intermediaries” will usually suffice instead of warnings to the patient
17
Q

Existence of Defect When Product Left Def’s Control

A
  • pl must show that the product has not been significantly altered since it left def’s control
  • if the product moved through normal channels of distribution, it will be inferred that the product was not altered + that the defect existed when the product left def’s control
18
Q

Misuse of Product

A
  • may be foreseeable
  • pl must’ve been making a foreseeable use of product at time of injury -> def not held liable for dangers not foreseeable at t of marketing
19
Q

Strict Products Liability - Damages

A
  • physical injury or property damage must be shown
  • recovery will be denied if sole claim is for economic loss
20
Q

Strict Products Liability - Disclaimers

A
  • ineffective
  • irrelevant in strict liability cases if personal injury or property damages occur
21
Q

Products Liability Based on Negligence

A
  • negligence is proved the same way as in a “standard” case
  • may invoke res ipsa loquitur if defect wouldn’t usually occur w/o manufacturer negligence
  • usually difficult to hold intermediaries (retailers + wholesalers) liable (can satisfy their duty through cursory inspection)
    -> intermediary’s negligent failure to discover defect does not supersede original manufacturer’s negligence unless intermediary conduct exceeds ordinary foreseeable negligence
  • privity not required -> any pl can sue
  • still need to establish physical injury or property damage, + disclaimers still ineffective
22
Q

Implied Warranties

A
  • two implied warranties implied in every sale of goods: merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
    -> can be basis for suit by buyer against seller, although most courts no longer require vertical privity + adopted narrow version of horizontal privity (buyer, family, household + guests can sue)
23
Q

Merchantability

A
  • refers to whether goods are of average acceptable quality + are generally fit for the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used
  • goods that are likely to injure users even when handled properly are obviously in breach of this warranty -> subject seller to liability
24
Q

Fitness for a Particular Purpose

A
  • arises when seller knows or has reason to know the particular purpose for which the goods are required + that buyer is relying on seller’s skill + judgment in selecting the goods
25
Q

Implied Warranties - Breach

A
  • breach if product fails to live up to either of the above standards
  • pl doesn’t have to prove fault on part of def
26
Q

Implied Warranties - Causation and Damages

A
  • causation handled similarly to ordinary negligence cases
  • personal injury + property damages, and purely economic loss, are recoverable
27
Q

Implied Warranties - Defenses

A
  • include assumption of risk + contributory negligence to same extent as in strict liability cases
  • failure to give notice of breach is also a defense under UCC (even in personal injury cases)
28
Q

Implied Warranties - Effect of Disclaimers

A
  • generally rejected in personal injury cases but upheld for economic loss
29
Q

Representation Theories

A
  • def may be liable when product doesn’t live up to some affirmative representation
  • two representation theories: express warranty and misrepresentation of fact
30
Q

Express Warranty

A
  • any affirmation of fact or promise concerning goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty
  • causation, damages, + defenses treated just as they are in implied warranty cases
31
Q

Express Warranties - Who Can Sue

A
  • any consumer, user, or bystander
  • if buyer sues, warranty must’ve been part of the basis of the bargain
  • if pl not in privity, they need not have relied on the representation as long as someone did
32
Q

Express Warranties - Breach

A
  • fault need not be shown to establish breach
  • pl need only show that product didn’t live up to its warranty
33
Q

Express Warranties - Disclaimers

A
  • effective only in the unlikely event that it is consistent with the warranty
34
Q

Misrepresentation of Fact

A

Seller liable for misrepresentations of facts concerning product where:
- statement was of a material fact concerning quality or use of goods (mer puffery insufficient)
- seller intended to induce reliance by buyer in a particular transaction
- liability usually based on strict liability but may also arise for intentional or negligent misrepresentations

35
Q

Misrepresentation of Fact - Justifiable Reliance

A
  • required
  • representation must’ve been a substantial factor in inducing the purchase
  • reliance need not have been the victim’s
  • privity is irrelevant
36
Q

Misrepresentation of Fact - Causation and Damages

A
  • actual cause is shown by reliance
  • proximate cause + damages are the same as for strict liability
37
Q

Misrepresentation of Fact - Defenses

A
  • assumption of risk is not a defense if pl is entitled to rely on he representation
  • contributory negligence is the same as in strict liability unless def committed intentional tort misrepresentation
38
Q

Affirmative Defenses

A
  • in contributory negligence states, contributory negligence is no defense if pl failed to realize the danger or guard against it
  • it is a defense if pl knew of the danger + 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
  • many comparative negligence states apply their comparative negligence rules to strict liability cases

July Exam - Torts (18 decks)

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