Strict Liability Flashcards
when is an owner strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals? (2 rqmts)
ONLY when they…
1) had knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities, and
2) that dangerous propensity is NOT common to the species
true or false: injury caused by normal dangerous characteristics of domestic animals does NOT create strict liability.
TRUE (dangerous characteristic must be uncommon to the species)
true or false: an owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals.
TRUE
true or false: an owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals (even if they’re kept as pets).
TRUE
what must a trespasser prove to hold an owner liable for injuries caused by wild animals?
that the owner was negligent (strict liability generally not imposed in favor of trespassers)
what is an abnormally dangerous activity? (2 rqmts)
an activity will be abnormally dangerous if:
1) it creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, and
2) it is not a matter of common usage in the comunity
what kind of harm resulting from an abnormally dangerous activity will create strict liability?
only harm that results from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity (including harm caused by fleeing the danger)
what kind of harm resulting from a wild animal will create strict liability?
only harm that results from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous animal (including fleeing from that animal)
generally, what is products liability?
liability of a supplier of a defective product to someone injured by the product
what theories of liability may a plaintiff use for products liability? (5)
1) intent
2) negligence
3) implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
4) representation (fraud/misreps)
5) strict liability
what must a plaintiff show to find liability for defective products under a strict liability theory? (4 elements)
plaintiff must show:
1) defendant is a merchant (any commercial supplier of a product – manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, ppl leasing products, etc)
2) product is defective
3) product was not substantially altered since leaving the defendant’s control
4) plaintiff was making foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury
true or false: casual sellers can be held strictly liable for a defective product.
FALSE (only merchants)
true or false: strict products liability applies only to products.
TRUE (does NOT apply to services)
true or false: a service provider is a merchant for products liability purposes.
FALSE (strict products liability does NOT apply to services)
what kinds of parties have standing to sue for products liability? (broad)
users, consumers, bystanders (no privity of K with defendant required)
what are the 3 types of defects?
1) manufacturing defects
2) design defects
3) information defects
when does a manufacturing defect occur?
when a product emerges from manufacturing different from and more dangerous than the products that were made properly (“departed from its intended design”)
when will a defendant be liable for a manufacturing defect?
when the plaintiff can show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect (even with misuse)
generally, when does a design defect occur?
when all products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities
when will manufacturers NOT be liable for dangerous products?
if the (1) danger is apparent and (2) there is no safer way to make the product
what must a plaintiff show to hold a defendant strictly liable for a defective design?
plaintiff must show that the defendant could have made the product safer without serious impact on the product’s utility or price (alternative design)
what must be shown for a sufficient alternative design? (such that defendant can be held strictly liable for not making the product safer) (3 things)
plaintiff must show the alternative design:
1) would have been safer
2) is practical (not undermining purpose/utility)
3) is economically feasible (around the same price)
true or false: a product’s NONCOMPLIANCE with government safety standards will establish that it is defective.
TRUE
true or false: a product’s COMPLIANCE with government safety standards will establish that it is NOT defective.
FALSE (helps but is not conclusive)
