Strict Liability--Products

Question 1

Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Answer 1

implied in every sale of goods in a suit for buyer against seller
Def: is whether the goods are average acceptable quality and are generally fit for the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used

Question 2

Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular purpose

Answer 2

1. This duty arises when the seller knows or has reason to know the particular purpose for which the goods are required
2. and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill and judgment in selecting the goods

Question 3

Standing: implied warranties

Answer 3

Vertical privity has been abolished, only horizontal privity required. thus, P, and household family and guests may sue

Question 4

Breach of implied warranties

Answer 4

If the product fails to live up to either of the above standards, the warranty is breached, and the D is liable
FPP: S knows or has to reason to know that B is looking for a good with particular purpose and B is relying on S’s skill and judgment in selecting goods

M: average acceptable quality and are generally fit for the ordinary purpose for which they are used

Question 5

Prima Facie Case–SL Products

Answer 5

1. The defendant is a commercial supplier
2. The product was defective (unreasonably dangerous)
3. Actual and proximate causation
4. damages (not sole economic loss)

Actual causation:

1. P must trace the harm suffered to a defect that existed at the time the product left the D’s control
2. Any substantial alteration in the condition of the product after it left D’s control negates actual cause

Proximate:
1. The type of injury P suffered was foreseeable at the time the product was placed into the stream of commerce

Question 6

Defective Design

Answer 6

RS: to show that a product was defectively designed, the P must show that the products of a line are all manufactured according to specifications that are defective in a condition that creates an unreasonably dangerous product to users

Question 7

Negligent Product Design

Answer 7

1. Duty–D commercial supplier, foreseeable plaintiffs
2. Breach–Negligent conduct that lead to supply of a defective product (knew or should have known about the dangers)
3. Causation and damages same as SL
   Actual causation: the P must trace the harm to a defect that existed at the time it left D’s control
   No substantial alteration of product after left control
   Proximate cause: The type of injury suffered was foreseeable at the time the D placed it in the stream of commerce
   Rule: negligence of a driver is generally foreseeable and does not cut off liabiltiy like med mal