Strict Liability Flashcards
What are the elements for strict liability?
Strict liability requires proof of the following elements: (i) the nature of the defendant’s activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe; (ii) the dangerous aspect of the activity is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and (iii) the plaintiff suffered damage to person or property. When strict liability applies, negligence and intent is irrelevant.
For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.
Analysis
The general rule of an employer’s non-liability for torts of his independent contractor does not apply to abnormally dangerous work, which is considered non-delegable and triggers strict liability. As such, the builder will be liable for the damage caused by the contractor’s blasting.
The nature of the builder’s liability is that the blasting activity is so dangerous that even reasonable care will not ameliorate all risk of harm, and his duty to make safe is non-delegable, even if he did not perform the work himself.
What are the elements and ways a party may bring a product liability claim?
A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.
C is correct. Under a strict liability theory of products liability, a commercial supplier has an absolute duty to make safe the products it produces or supplies. To this end, any commercial supplier in the chain of supply can be held liable for injuries caused by defective or unreasonably dangerous products produced or sold, regardless of whether they were negligent. Here, the store was a commercial supplier of beverages and sold the consumer the contaminated bottle, causing an injury. Therefore, the consumer could prevail against the store.
A is incorrect. Under a strict liability theory, contributory negligence does not cut short a defendant’s liability unless the plaintiff assumes the risk. Here, there is no indication that the consumer saw the snail, and therefore could not have assumed the risk of injury. The consumer was at most contributorily negligent, and therefore she would likely recover against the store.
B is incorrect. Any commercial supplier in the supply chain can be held strictly liable for injuries resulting from defective products, regardless of whether they were negligent. Here, a bottle of soda became defective during the bottling process and was sold to the consumer by the store. Therefore, even though the negligence if any would lie with the bottler, the consumer would be able to recover in her claim against the store.
D is incorrect. Exclusive control is a concept connected to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and allows plaintiffs to create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by proving that (i) the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence; (ii) that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant’s control; and (iii) that there are no other plausible explanations. Here, the store did not have exclusive control over the bottle and any negligence would lie with the bottler, Therefore, liability would attach to the store under a strict liability theory, not under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
What duty does a commercial supplier have regarding safety and who can be found liable in the chain of supply?
Under a strict liability theory of products liability, a commercial supplier has an absolute duty to make safe the products it produces or supplies. To this end, any commercial supplier in the chain of supply can be held liable for injuries caused by defective or unreasonably dangerous products produced or sold, regardless of whether they were negligent. Here, the store was a commercial supplier of beverages and sold the consumer the contaminated bottle, causing an injury. Therefore, the consumer could prevail against the store.
A is incorrect. Under a strict liability theory, contributory negligence does not cut short a defendant’s liability unless the plaintiff assumes the risk. Here, there is no indication that the consumer saw the snail, and therefore could not have assumed the risk of injury. The consumer was at most contributorily negligent, and therefore she would likely recover against the store.
B is incorrect. Any commercial supplier in the supply chain can be held strictly liable for injuries resulting from defective products, regardless of whether they were negligent. Here, a bottle of soda became defective during the bottling process and was sold to the consumer by the store. Therefore, even though the negligence if any would lie with the bottler, the consumer would be able to recover in her claim against the store.
D is incorrect. Exclusive control is a concept connected to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and allows plaintiffs to create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by proving that (i) the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence; (ii) that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant’s control; and (iii) that there are no other plausible explanations. Here, the store did not have exclusive control over the bottle and any negligence would lie with the bottler, Therefore, liability would attach to the store under a strict liability theory, not under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Does a strict liability analysis include negligence?
No. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense in a strict products liability action where the plaintiff merely failed to discover the defect or guard against its existence, or where the plaintiff’s misuse was reasonably foreseeable. However, the assumption of risk may be a defense, where the plaintiff engaged in voluntary and unreasonable conduct and used the product despite discovering the defect and being aware of the danger.
B is correct. A product is defective if it fails to include a feasible safety device that would prevent injuries foreseeably incurred in ordinary use. A plaintiff can recover on a design defect claim by prevailing on a risk-utility analysis, typically by demonstrating the existence of an economically feasible alternative design.
