Strict Liability Cases Flashcards
P had underground coal mines on his land adjacent to land on which D built a reservoir supply water to his mill; the reservoir broke and flooded P’s mines.
Can a neighbor be liable for constructing a well where the water passes down to below ground unused vertical mind shaft and floods, his neighbors mine?
Yes, he is liable. D’s building of a reservoir on his property was an unnatural use of property —> D is liable. Even if D took precautions it is only fair for D to take the blame.
D will be strictly liable he damages another by thing activity unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place where it is maintained (“non-natural”) in light of the character of that place and its surrounding
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
Ps were injured during D’s fireworks display
Are the pyrotechnics and strictly liable for damages caused by fireworks displays?
Yes. Fireworks displays are abnormally dangerous activities, high risk of serious harm and cannot eliminate. The risk presenting a public firework display is not a matter of common usage. however, it was an appropriate place for fireworks show and the value of fireworks on Fourth of July outweighs the risk.
Public policy considerations justify imposing strict liability on those who engage in abnormally, dangerous activities, particularly where the activity entails the destruction of evidence that could be used at trial example (ex: explosives )
- elaborative administrative skills, regulating the activity can demonstrate dangerousness of the activity
- If statue requires liability insurance for business engaging in activity and that insurance covers all damages—even those not from negligence—statute can be deemed to express strict liability (puzzling according to Rossi)
Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp (1991)
Products Liability’s Tort Heritage: Negligence
Revisiting MacPherson v. Buick (1916)
Rejects winterbottoms privity limit on negligence liability and says that if a product was carelessly made is reasonably certain place life & limb in peril and if the product manufacturer knows the product will:
- be used by non-purchasers and
- not be inspected for safety after sale
—> the manufacturer is under a duty to those persons to make it carefully
P worked as a waitress in a restaurant. while handling bottles of Coca-Cola one exploded in her hand, causing severe injuries
Can Coca Cola be liable?
Yes, Coca-Cola had exclusive control over the pressurizing of its bottles— excessive pressure typically does not occur without negligence in the pressurizing phase. —> res ipsa loquitur applies and Coca-Cola could be found liable for negligence for the injuries
*Concurrence Traynor**: liability should not only be based on theory of negligence, but the manufacturer should incur liability when an article he has (1) placed on the market—(2) knowing it is to be used without inspection—(3) proves to have a defect that (4) causes injury to human beings
- Proof of manufacturer’s fault is not required = “strict” products liability
- Public policy rationale: manufacturer is in a better position to ensure any harm to the product because of asymmetry of information between what the consumer versus manufacturer knows about the product
- also a cost-spreading rationale (spread cost to manufacture)
-Certainty where P will recover damages—> effectuate, better compliance through investing and a safer product
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1944)
P used power tool manufactured by D. Piece of wood he was shaping flew out of power tool, and hit him in the head, causing serious injury.
Can manufacturer be liable?
Yes. By placing a product on the market, a manufacturer becomes strictly liable for a defect in the product that causes injury to the ultimate user of the product.
Manufacturer is strictly liable for defect and product when he places it on the market — implicit and its presence there is that will guarantee to do its job
If P proves he was injured while using the product in the way it was intended to be used and was injured due to a defect in the product design and manufacture, the manufacture can be held strictly liable for the defective product
Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods, Inc. (1963)
He was hunting. Prepared to unload his gun when it discharged and shot him in the foot. There was evidence rifle was not working properly as safety mechanism required more force than usual.
Does manufacturer face strict products liability?
Where there is a manufacturing defect (an added metal ridge) no other guns of similar make that caused the injury with a prototype, there is a clear deviation —> manufacturing defect
A manufacturer of subject district product liability where P shows the product was defective at the time it left the manufacturer hands, and that defect cause injury to P
Supplier’s duty to warn is discharged by providing information to third parties upon whom it can reasonably rely to communicate the information to the ultimate users
Defendant bears the burden of proof for the threshold determination of whether a product is defective in design
Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish what exactly was defective about the product
- successor liability = success may be held liable for the predecessor companies torts
Because of the product line doctrine, strictly product liability cause of action enjoy the unique ability to prevail against successor entities
Gower v. Savage Arms, Inc. (2001)
