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. R2d 520 factors point toward ADA & strict liability:
- factors a-c: is the activity unavoidable dangerous, such that even when done with care, physical harm will commonly result? YES - dangerous and cannnot be done w care —> SL
- factors d & e: imposed risks on others that are non-reciprocal? NO - general public cannot set off fireworks; audience seated at reasonable distance —> No SL.
- factor f: is activity sufficiently valued? YES, highly valued —> No SL.
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.
Liability is in tort, not warranty; established if;
- Injury occurred while P used product as intended &
- Injury was caused by DEFECT in product
- that P wasn’t aware
- that rendered product unsafe for intended use
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
- manufacturing defect: imperfection (metal ridge) prevented gun’s safety lock from engaging: P prevails
- Design Defect (all savage models): no detent system to indicate safety lock is engaged; safety lock must be disengaged to unload gun
- summary judgment for D: no actual causation as matter of law
-Failure to Warn (no instructions, labels): users not warned of risk of accidental firing
- summary judgment granted for D: no defect & no causation as matter of law
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)
He was using light to unclog his workplaces drain when it splashed seriously burning him and causing loss of vision in one eye
May defendant avoid liability for design defect without showing that the product utility outweighs its inherent risk of harm ?
No. Did not grand summary judgment because they failed to establish that the product is reasonably safer for its intended use. D failed to prove p’s mishandling was the sole proximate cause of his injuries because jury could conclude that the product was so inherently dangerous that it should never have found its way into the stream of commerce.
Even with adequate warnings, a product may be so dangerous and it’s misuse may be so foreseeable that a factfinder employing the risk utility analysis could reasonably conclude that the “utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing the product”
Procedural Notes
- in New York, demo for summary judgment has the burden to show there is a reasonably safer alternative by making their own arguments with evidence
- D makes no evidence that there is not a safer but functionally equivalent alternative to lye, but just says “it cannot be designed differently without making an entirely different product”—burden not met
- In federal court under Sacks demo for summary judgment can win by showing at the peace claim lack supporting evidence P (P bears the burden)
Chow v. Reckitt & Coleman, LLC (2011)
