Strict Liability

Question 1

Injury by Animals

Answer 1

Owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by trespass of his animals

Question 2

Strict Liability for Domesticated animals

Answer 2

(dog, pets, farm animals) General: No strict liability, however, if you have knowlege of vicious propensities (previous biting). But no liability to trespasser but cannot keep vicious dog only to protect property.

Question 3

Strict Liability for Wild Animals

Answer 3

If you keep a wild animal (lion, tiger, ape) on your land, you are strictly liable (knowledge or reasonable safety precautions are irrelevant)

Question 4

Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Answer 4

If test met, safety precautions are irrelevant:

1. ADA creates foreseeable risk of serious harm, even when reasonable care is exercised (can’t be made safe), AND
2. Activity is not a matter of common use w/in the community.

Question 5

When does Strict Products Liability apply?

Answer 5

Any product is subject to claims, consumer or production manufacturer;
Does not apply when suing under alternate theory (res ipsa negligence)
SPL focuses on defective products; Negligence focuses on Def’s conduct (must establish Def’s fault)

Question 6

What are possible claims when P injured when using a product?

Answer 6

Strict products liability, breach of warranty, res ipsa negilgence, implied warning

Question 7

What are elements for Strict Products Liability?

Answer 7

1. Def. is a merchant (routinely deals in goods of this type; not casual seller) or a commercial lessor (P can sue if he’s renting equipment)
2. Product must be defective (“unreasonably dangerous to users): Mfg. Defect, Design defect, Information defect
3. Product has not been altered since it left Def’s hands
4. Forseeable use of product: not limited to intended uses
5. Causation and Damages.

Question 8

Defense to Strict Products Liability

Answer 8

Assumption of Risk

Question 9

Manufacturing Defect

Answer 9

makes it more dangerous that P would expect, product departs from “intended design”

Question 10

Design Defect

Answer 10

Product is not safe for intended use, OR could have been made safer (alternative) w/o impact on price or utility

Question 11

Information Defect

Answer 11

If product cannot be made physically safer in practical and cost effective way, and still has residual risk too consumers, there must be appropriate warnings.

1. Must be prominent and come to attention of user
2. Merchant of goods need not warn about obvious danger
3. Knowledge of a particular unintended use will give rise to a duty to warn

Question 12

Products Liability (global rule)

Answer 12

Product liability has five theories of liability: (1) strict liability, (2) negligence, (3) representation theories, (4) intent, and (5) implied warranties.

Question 13

Strict Product Liability

Answer 13

A prima facie case for strict product liability requires: (1) commercial supplier, (2) breach, (3) causation (actual and proximate), (4) damages

Question 14

Duty for Commercial Suppliers

Answer 14

A commercial supplier, not a casual seller, has a duty to supply safe products. Privity between a commercial supplier and plaintiff is not required - users, buyers and bystanders can sue a commercial supplier.

Question 15

Breach for Strict Product Liability

Answer 15

A breach occurs if (1) the defendant supplies a defective product, (2) the product is defective when it leaves the defendant’s control (reaches the P without substantial alteration). There are three types of defects: (a) manufacturing, (b) design, (c) inadequate warning.

Question 16

Actual Cause for Product Liability

Answer 16

To prove actual cause, the plaintiff must trace the harm suffered to a defect in the product that existed when it left the defendant’s control.

Question 17

Proximate Cause for Product Liability

Answer 17

Proximate Cause exists when the injury is foreseeable result of defendant’s conduct. When multiple forces contribute to the injury, one examines the other events to determine whether they are intervening (foreseeable events which result from an unforeseeable act still giving rise to liability) or superceding (unforeseeable events break the causal connection between a defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injuries)