Strict Liability

Question 1

Most Common Situations

Answer 1

1. Inherently Dangerous activities.
2. Dog bites.
3. Defective products.

Question 2

Inherently Dangerous Activities (3) & Examples (5)

Answer 2

The defendant is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity if:

1. The activity involves a risk of SERIOUS harm to persons or property;
2. The activity cannot be performed WITHOUT risk of serious harm, no matter how much care is taken; AND
3. The activity is NO COMMONLY engaged in the particular community.

EXAMPLES:

1. Explosives
2. Wild or Exotic Animals
3. Damming up water
4. Heavy machinery
5. Children with weapons

Question 3

Dog Bites

Answer 3

Florida imposes strict liability for ALL dog bites.

It does not matter if the dog has never been aggressive before.

Florida dog owners are liable for the first bite.

Dog owners can prevent liability for bites that occur on their property by posting a sign that says “BAD DOG”

The sign must be legible but the victim does not need to be able to read it.

A bad dog sign does not shield an owner from liability if the victim is a child below the age of 6.

If the victim harassed the dog, his damages will be reduced by comparative fault.

Question 4

Strict Liability LADDER

Answer 4

Duty & Breach satisfied by the activity

MUST PROVE:

• Actual Causation
• Proximate Causation
• DAMAGES

Question 5

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Answer 5

Strict liability is imposed where the defendant supplied a defective product, which caused injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must demonstrate causation and damages.

The defect may arise from design or quality control. Design defects make the product itself dangerous whereas quality control defects arise from an otherwise safe design.

Florida law applies two alternative tests to determine if a product is defective and therefore strict products liability should apply. The first is the CONSUMER EXPECTATION TEST and the second being the RISK-UTILITY TEST.

The Consumer Expectation TEST asks whether the product failed to perform safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an INTENDED OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MANNER.

The RISK-UTILITY TEST asks whether the defendant can establish that the benefits of the design OUTWEIGH the risk of danger.

Either test IS SUFFICIENT to establish that a product is defective–NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE BOTH.

Question 6

CONSUMER EXPECTATION TEST

Answer 6

The Consumer Expectation TEST asks whether the product failed to perform safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an INTENDED OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MANNER.

Question 7

RISK-UTILITY TEST

Answer 7

The RISK-UTILITY TEST asks whether the defendant can establish that the benefits of the design OUTWEIGH the risk of danger.