Strict Liability

Question 1

when is an owner strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals? (2 rqmts)

Answer 1

ONLY when they…
1) had knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities, and
2) that dangerous propensity is NOT common to the species

Question 2

true or false: injury caused by normal dangerous characteristics of domestic animals does NOT create strict liability.

Answer 2

TRUE (dangerous characteristic must be uncommon to the species)

Question 3

true or false: an owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals.

Answer 3

TRUE

Question 4

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).

Answer 4

TRUE

Question 5

what must a trespasser prove to hold an owner liable for injuries caused by wild animals?

Answer 5

that the owner was negligent (strict liability generally not imposed in favor of trespassers)

Question 6

what is an abnormally dangerous activity? (2 rqmts)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

what kind of harm resulting from an abnormally dangerous activity will create strict liability?

Answer 7

only harm that results from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity (including harm caused by fleeing the danger)

Question 8

what kind of harm resulting from a wild animal will create strict liability?

Answer 8

only harm that results from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous animal (including fleeing from that animal)

Question 9

generally, what is products liability?

Answer 9

liability of a supplier of a defective product to someone injured by the product

Question 10

what theories of liability may a plaintiff use for products liability? (5)

Answer 10

1) intent
2) negligence
3) implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
4) representation (fraud/misreps)
5) strict liability

Question 11

what must a plaintiff show to find liability for defective products under a strict liability theory? (4 elements)

Answer 11

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

Question 12

true or false: casual sellers can be held strictly liable for a defective product.

Answer 12

FALSE (only merchants)

Question 13

true or false: strict products liability applies only to products.

Answer 13

TRUE (does NOT apply to services)

Question 14

true or false: a service provider is a merchant for products liability purposes.

Answer 14

FALSE (strict products liability does NOT apply to services)

Question 15

what kinds of parties have standing to sue for products liability? (broad)

Answer 15

users, consumers, bystanders (no privity of K with defendant required)

Question 16

what are the 3 types of defects?

Answer 16

1) manufacturing defects
2) design defects
3) information defects

Question 17

when does a manufacturing defect occur?

Answer 17

when a product emerges from manufacturing different from and more dangerous than the products that were made properly (“departed from its intended design”)

Question 18

when will a defendant be liable for a manufacturing defect?

Answer 18

when the plaintiff can show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect (even with misuse)

Question 19

generally, when does a design defect occur?

Answer 19

when all products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities

Question 20

when will manufacturers NOT be liable for dangerous products?

Answer 20

if the (1) danger is apparent and (2) there is no safer way to make the product

Question 21

what must a plaintiff show to hold a defendant strictly liable for a defective design?

Answer 21

plaintiff must show that the defendant could have made the product safer without serious impact on the product’s utility or price (alternative design)

Question 22

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)

Answer 22

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)

Question 23

true or false: a product’s NONCOMPLIANCE with government safety standards will establish that it is defective.

Answer 23

TRUE

Question 24

true or false: a product’s COMPLIANCE with government safety standards will establish that it is NOT defective.

Answer 24

FALSE (helps but is not conclusive)

Question 25

when does an information defect occur?

Answer 25

when a manufacturer fails to give adequate instructions or warnings as to the risks involved in using the product that may NOT be apparent to users (hidden risks)

Question 26

what is an “adequate” warning?

Answer 26

warnings that:
- are prominent
- are comprehensible
- provide info about mitigating risk (if relevant)

Question 27

what is the effect of a plaintiff’s showing that the product moved thru normal channels of distribution? (for product non-alteration element)

Answer 27

it is PRESUMED that the product was not altered and that the defect existed when it left the defendant’s control

Question 28

true or false: foreseeable use of a product does NOT include misuses.

Answer 28

FALSE (foreseeable use includes proper uses and common misuses)

Question 29

true or false: generally, an intermediary’s ordinary negligence in failing to discover a defect does NOT supersede the original manufacturer’s negligence.

Answer 29

TRUE

Question 30

when will an intermediary’s negligent failure to discover a defect supersede the manufacturer’s negligence?

Answer 30

when the intermediary’s conduct exceeds ordinary foreseeable negligence

Question 31

in traditional, common law jurisdictions (use contrib neg schemes), when will contributory negligence be a defense to strict liability? (2 rqmts)

Answer 31

only when the plaintiff…
1) knew of the danger, and
2) their unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm from the animal/activity/product
**NOTE = not the most common scheme (use comparative negligence)

Question 32

true or false: generally, comparative negligence states apply their comparative negligence rules to strict liability cases.

Answer 32

TRUE