Strict Liability:Products Liability

Question 1

What is the prima facie case forstrict products liability?

Answer 1

1) strict duty owed by a merchant ∆ that routinely deals in this type of a product Traps: (i)casual seller is NOT merchant; (ii)service provider (i.e. they offer products incidentally to services)is NOT merchant of products used; (iii)commercial lessors ARE merchants (e.g. car rental company); (iv)every party in distribution chain IS a merchant NOTE: Privity is not required (users, consumers and bystanders can all sue) 2) production OR sale of a defective product Manufacturing defect: aberration/anomalyin batch from same assembly line Design defect: (i) hypothetical alternative design is (1) safer, (2) economical, AND (3) practical NOTE: Failure to conform to a gov’t regulation is CONCLUSIVE proof of a defective design (BUT compliance with gov’t regulation is NOT conclusive evidence of a non-defective product) Inadequate warnings defect:exists if (i) the product has residual risks that cannot be designed out; (ii) the consumers will not be aware of the risk; AND (iii) the product does not have adequate warnings 3) the product was not altered in any way (i.e. defect existed when it left Δ’s hands) Presumed if product moved in normal distribution chain If π buys secondhand, then he’d have to prove non-alteration 4) the π is making a foreseeable use of the product NOT limited to intended uses, but to foreseeable uses (e.g. chair to change lightbulb) ———– NOTE: products liability can be brought under OTHER theories of tort [intent, ordinary negl., warranties of merchantability/fitness, and representation (warranties)]

Question 2

What are the 2basicstrict liability fact patterns?

Answer 2

1) Injuries Caused by WILD animals Domestic: ONLY S/L if Δ knew of dangerous propensity; Wild: S/L for wild animals kept by Δ NOTE: doesn’t matter if the animal is COMMON or UNCOMMON for the community EXCEPTION: ∆ would never be strictly liable for trespasser on property (even if domestic animal has vicious propensity and the owner has knowledge) 2) Ultra-Hazardous Activities Elements: (i)creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm, EVEN when reasonable care is exercised (i.e can’t be made safe); (ii) uncommon activity in area where occurring E.g. blasting/explosives; toxic chemicals; nuclear, brakes, cancer treatments NOTE: the dangerous aspect of the activity has to be the actual/proximate cause of π’s injury for S/L to stick

Question 3

What are the 3 affirmative defenses to prima faciestrict liability?

Answer 3

1) Contributory negl. It is NO defense, if π failed to realize the danger It IS a defense, if π knew appreciated the danger AND his unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm 2) Assumption of risk: is a good defense to S/L 3) Comparative negl.: apply the same comparative negl. rules to S/L cases

Question 4

What are the 3 affirmative defenses to prima faciestrict products liability?

Answer 4

1) Contributory negl. It is NO defense, if π failed to realize the danger It IS a defense, if π knew appreciated the danger AND his unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm 2) Assumption of risk: is a GOOD defense to S/L 3) Comparative negl.: apply the same comparative negl. rules to S/L cases