Strict Liability Flashcards
Liability for animals - domesticated animals
An owner is not strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals, including farm animals, unless they have knowledge of that particular animals, dangerous propensities that are not common to the species. Injury caused by the normally dangerous characteristics of domesticated animals, for example, bulls or honeybees, does not create strict liability. 
However, don’t forget to consider that the landowner may be liable on intentional tort grounds for injuries inflicted by a vicious watchdog
Liability for animals - domesticated animals - trespassing animals
An owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals.
Liability for animals - wild animals
An owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals, even those kept as pets.
Liability for animals - wild animals - strict liability not available for trespassers
Strict liability will generally not be imposed in favor of trespassers. To recover for their injuries from a wild animal, or abnormally, dangerous domestic animal, a trespasser must prove the owners negligence.
Abnormally dangerous activities - foreseeable plaintiffs
As with negligence, the defendants liability extends only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Also, the harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity or animal, including harm caused by flinging from the perceived danger. 
Abnormally dangerous activities - generally
Courts generally impose two requirements for finding an activity to be abnormally dangerous:
The activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm, even when reasonable cares exercised by all actors
The activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.
Common examples of abnormally, dangerous activities include blasting, or manufacturing, explosives, storing a transporting dangerous chemicals, or biological materials, and anything involving radiation or nuclear energy.
Abnormally dangerous activities - cause other than the dangerous aspect
Strict liability does not apply when the injuries caused by something other than the dangerous aspect of the activity.
Product liability - theories
There are five theories of liability that are plaintiff may use:
Intent
Negligence
Implied warrantees of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
Representation theories like express warranty and misrepresentation
Strict liability
Product liability - elements for strict liability
The defendant is a merchant (in other words, a commercial supplier of the product)
The product is defective
The product was not substantially altered since leaving the defendants control
The plaintive was making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury
Product liability - strict liability - only merchants can be held liable
Does not extend a casual sellers (used goods or not in the regular business)
Does not extend it to services, only products. (Even where a product is provided incident to a service, there is no strict liability. The plaintiff may still sue in negligence)
Includes commercial lessors (in other words, those who rent rather than sell products also can be held strictly liable)
Includes the entire distribution chain. Privity is not required: users, consumers, and bystanders can sue (the fact that there was no contractual privity between the plaintiff and defendant will prevent the plaintiff from recovering.)
Product liability - strict liability - types of defects - manufacturing defects
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 can 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. 
Product liability - strict liability - types of defects - design defects
When all products of a line are the same, but have dangerous propensities, they may be found to have a design defect. Manufacturers will not be held liable for some dangerous products like knives, if the danger is a parent, and there is no safer way to make the product. The plaintiff usually must show that defendant could have made the product safer, without serious impact on the products utility or price. (the feasible alternative approach)

Product liability - strict liability - types of defects - design defects - government safety standards
A products noncompliance with government safety standards establishes that is defective, while compliance with safety standards including label requirements is evidence, but not conclusive, that the product is not defective.
Product liability - strict liability - misuse of product may be foreseeable
The plaintive 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 foreseeable at the time of marketing.
However, remember that a foreseeable use does not mean an intended or appropriate use. Many products are commonly misused in ways that could be considered for seeable. For example, people stand on chairs in order to get something off a shelf, even though that’s not their intended purpose. 
Product liability - strict liability - nature of damages recoverable
Physical injury or property damage must be shown. Recovery will be denied if the sole claim is for economic loss.
Product liability - strict liability - types of defects - information defects
A product may be defective as a result of the manufacturers failure to give adequate instructions or warnings, asked to the risks involved in using the product that may not be a parent to users.
For prescription drugs, and medical devices, warnings given to learned in intermediaries, for example, of prescribing physician, will usually suffice in lieu of warnings the patient.
Warning must be prominent, comprehensible, and provide information about mitigating the risk,
like should use in an open area.
