Strict Liability Flashcards
A boater taking his new powerboat out on a large lake ran out of gas because of a defective seal in the gas tank. The defect was not discoverable by an ordinary inspection. His frantic signaling alerted the captain of a sightseeing boat passing by. The captain pulled up alongside to assist and attempted to restart the boat. A spark ignited a pool of gas that had leaked from the gas tank and collected in the lower part of the boat, causing an explosion and fire. The captain was severely burned and died from his injuries. The captain’s estate brought a wrongful death action based on strict liability against the powerboat dealer and the manufacturer. Evidence at trial established that the dealer had sold the manufacturer’s boats for years without any problems reported by customers.
Can the captain’s estate recover any damages from the dealer?
A - Yes, unless the jury finds that the boater was negligent in failing to investigate where the gas had gone.
B - Yes, because harm to someone in the captain’s position was a foreseeable result of the gas leak.
C - No, because the dealer had no reason to anticipate that the manufacturer assembled the gas tank improperly.
D - No, because the captain did not have a sufficient relationship to the boater to make the dealer liable for the captain’s death.
The captain’s estate can recover from the dealer on a strict products liability ground because the captain was a foreseeable bystander and the dealer is a commercial supplier. Recovery in a wrongful death action is allowed only to the extent that the deceased could have recovered in a personal injury action had he lived. The captain could have recovered from the dealer in a products liability action based on strict liability because the dealer is a commercial supplier of the boat and is liable if it sold a product that was so defective as to be unreasonably dangerous. The defect in the assembly of the gas tank was unreasonably dangerous because it allowed gas to leak out and collect where it could be ignited. The dealer would be liable to the captain, despite the fact that he was not in privity with the dealer, because he was a foreseeable plaintiff. The disabling effect of the gas leak made it foreseeable that someone passing by would come to the boater’s assistance and thereby come within the zone of danger from the leak (i.e., danger invites rescue). The explosion that resulted from the leak was the actual and proximate cause of the captain’s death. Therefore, the captain’s estate can recover damages from the dealer.
T/F: In products liability actions based on strict liability, the retailer may be liable even if it had no reason to anticipate that the product was dangerous or had no opportunity to inspect the product for defects.
True. While the dealer could assert that defense if the action were based on negligence, the call of the question indicates that the action is based on a strict liability theory. Under strict liability, the dealer is liable simply because it is a commercial supplier of a product with a dangerous defect.
