Strict Liability

Question 1

What are the effects of the Strict Liability doctrine?

Answer 1

D has an absolute duty to make activities safe, allows P to establish D’s liability for P’s injuries without proving that D acted negligently

Even if D acted with all the care of the world, he will be liable if damages happen

Question 2

Cases where strict liability exists

Answer 2

1. Ultrahazadrous and /or abnormally dangerous conditions
2. Animal conduct
3. Products liability

Question 3

Strict Liability prima facie case elements

Answer 3

1. Nature of D’s activity imposes absolute duty to make safe (the event involves a strict liability standard)
2. Causation - actual and proximate cause (dangerous aspect of D’s activity caused P’s injury
3. Damages to P’s person or property

Question 4

What defenses can release D from a strict liability case?

Answer 4

Assumption of risks and comparative negligence

Question 5

Abnormally dangerous conditions requirements

Answer 5

1. Severe risk - condition or activity imposes a severe risk of harm to persons or property
2. Cannot be made safe - it cannot be made reasonably safe (cannot be performed without a serious risk of harm)
3. Uncommon - condition or activity is uncommon in the community

INJURY MUST RESULT FROM THE ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY

Question 6

Animal conduct (strict liability) Property Damage

Answer 6

Property damage from trespassing animals. Animals owners are strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage resulting from their animal’s trespass on another’s property.

Does not apply to household pets

Question 7

Animal conduct - Personal injuries - Wild Animals vs Domestic Animals

Answer 7

• Wild Animals - owners are strictly liable to licensees and invitees for unprovoked injuries caused by their wild animals
• Domestic Animals - no strict liability unless owners know of their animal’s unusually dangerous propensities

Question 8

Trespassers can recover? (animal conduct)

Answer 8

Normally they can’t recover, however animals used as deadly death traps are not permitted

Question 9

Product Liability - Theories

Answer 9

1. (i) Intentional torts (weird, almost never the case) (battery when the supplier knows that the product may harm someone, general intent);
2. (ii) Negligence;
3. (iii) Strict liability;
4. (iv) Implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; and
5. (v) Representation theories (express warranty and misrepresentation).

Question 10

Product liability - Strict liability (elements)

Answer 10

1. D is a commercial supplier
2. Product is defective
3. Defective product was actual and proximate cause of P’s injury
4. P used the product in a foreseeable manner

Question 11

Strict Product liability Elements, what is a commercial supplier?

Answer 11

One who routinely deals in the product sold, including any merchant in the stream of commerce. Manufacturer, distributor, supplier.

Not included: Casual sellers, service providers are not suppliers

Question 12

Who can sue on strict liability cases?

Answer 12

Foreseeable users or bystanders (e.g. buyers as well as their guests, employees, family etc.

Question 13

What damages are recoverable for strict liability: product liability?

Answer 13

P can recover for physical injury or property damage, but not solely for economic losses

Question 14

Type of product defects

Answer 14

Product is defective when is unreasonably dangerous

1. Manufacturing defect (product departs from its intended design)
2. Design defect (product is dangerous because of its faulty design)
3. Inadequate warning (manufacturer fails to warn of non-obvious risk associated with use)

Question 15

What the P needs to show to prove a manufacturing defect?

Answer 15

That the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.

(other requirements: D is a commercial supplier, the defect was the cause of the injury, and the product was used in a foreseeable manner)

Question 16

What the P needs to show to prove a design defect?

Answer 16

P must show that the product design creates an unreasonable risk of danger.

P must show that a hypothetical alternative design exist that is safer but has a comparable cost and purpose

Question 17

Inadequate warning - Requirements

Answer 17

P must show that the product has risk that:

1. Cannot be eliminated by redesign and
2. Consumers would not ordinarily notice, therefore a warning is needed

Question 18

Inadequate warning in unavoidably unsafe products

Answer 18

If a product cannot be made safe for ordinary use (chainsaw, a gun) manufacturer must give:

1. Proper instructions for use; and
2. Adequate warnings of known dangers

Question 19

Foreseeability in Inadequate warning

Answer 19

Manufacturer also has a duty to warn of foreseeable dangers from misuses of the product

D is not liable for risk that were unforeseeable at the time the product was marketed

Question 20

Negligence theory in product liability

Answer 20

THIS IS NOT STRICT LIABILITY, P may stablish liability for a product defect under a negligence theory. There is a product defect but there is also a duty breached by someone.

Elements: The same as any negligent case (duty of care, breach, causation and damages)

Question 21

Negligence Product Liability. Duty of Care and Breach

Answer 21

Each commercial supplier owes a duty to all foreseeable product users and bystanders.

That duty is breached when they negligently supply a defective product. Retailers and wholesalers satisfy due care by a cursory inspection of the product

Question 22

Negligence Product Liability. Causation and Damages

Answer 22

P must show actual and proximate cause. An intermediary’s negligent failure to discover a defect does not absolve the upstream commercial supplier of liability

P must show physical injury or property damage. The economic loss of the product is not enough for recovery (not by itself).

Question 23

Implied warranties (product defects)

Answer 23

Implied in every sale of goods there are these warrants

1. Merchantability - Seller warrants that goods are of average acceptable quality (without defects) and generally fit for ordinary general purpose
2. Fitness for a particular purpose - when the seller knows or has a reason to know about the buyer particular purpose for purchasing, he also implies a warranty that the goods are fit for that purpose

Question 24

Elements for implied warranties

Answer 24

1. Warranty - existence of an implied warranty
2. Breach - product fails to live up to applicable warranty
3. Causation - actual and proximate
4. Damages - personal, property and economic are all recoverable

Question 25

Product liability based on representation, overview?

Answer 25

D may be liable if a product falls short of an affirmative representation made to the buyer

The misrepresentation could happen when:

1. there is an express warranty statement
2. there is a misrepresentation of fact

Question 26

Express Warranty: Liability based on representation

Answer 26

A statement of fact or promise regarding goods sold that becomes part of the basis of the bargain.

• Any consumer or bystander can sue for breach. The reliance on the express warranty only requires to come from the original purchaser
• Elements: The same as the one on an implied warranty:
  
  1. Express warranty - relied upon by purchaser
  2. Breach - product fails to live up to the warranty
  3. Causation - actual and proximate
  4. Damages - personal, property, and economic loss

Question 27

Misrepresentation of fact

Answer 27

Seller will be liable for any misrepresentation made in the course of a sale if:

1. Seller made a misrepresentation regarding a material fact concerning the quality or use of the goods;
2. seller intended to induce reliance by buyer; and
3. The misrepresentation induced justifiable reliance

Question 28

Defenses in Liability based on representation. Express warranty vs Misrepresentation of facts

Answer 28

Defenses in Express Warranty: Assumption of risk, contributory and comparative negligence

Defenses in Misrepresentation of facts: NO assumption of risks, contributory negligence only available if the representation was negligent no intentional