Strict liability torts Flashcards
Abnormally dangerous activities
It is dangerous to get in fights with Losers from the DMV:
- Location (Inappropriate for chosen location)
- Dangerous (inherently)
- Make safe (virtually impossible to)
- Value (little value to community - courts give LESS weight to this argument)
Common examples: using explosives, crop dusting, operating a nuclear power plant.
Nature of risks / nature of activities
Under strict liability, only cause and damages is required (duty/breach negligence is bypassed).
SL also requires that harm be from a cause which makes an activity hazardous (dynamite scaring horses would fall under a category of many other factors which could scare horses)
Products liability (requires P to show)
CDIF - C, that’s the DIFference in this product which caused my injury:
C - control (defect existed when product left D’s control and was not substantially changed thereafter)
D - defective in manufacture, design or failure to warn
I - injury (not only economic) was caused by the defect in a
F - foreseeable way
Manufacture defect (requires P to show)
- Physical departure from
- Intended design which makes a product
- Unreasonably dangerous
Design defect tests
Hurts the rating in Consumer RepoRts:
- Consumer expectation (product is less safe that ordinary consumer would expect)
- Risk utility ( foreseeable use - risks outweigh benefits)
- Reasonable design alternative
Consumer
Risk
Reasonable
Failure to warn
- Failure to warn (P was not warned about risks using the product)
- Obvious ordinary (risks are not obvious to ordinary user)
- Aware (designer/manufacturer was aware of the risks)
Failure
tO
wArn
Eligible P’s and D’s (scope) of products liability
P - Foreseeable users (purchasers, bystanders) may pursue a PL claim - HIGHLY likely to be foreseeable
D - Merchant (person/entity who routinely deals with type of good) in chain of distribution
Domestic and wild animals
Domestic - must show owner knows or has reason to know of animal’s dangerous propensity
Wild - strictly liable regardless of safety precautions. However, NOT SL for trespassers
NOTE: Must be the type of harm which makes the animal inherently dangerous (e.g., leopard clumsily knocking over a child vs. biting)
Breach of warranty definition,
Types of warranties
and
Defenses
Where a product purports to work in a particular way, that could constitute an express warranty and when it fails to work and causes injury, that could amount to breach of warranty or misrepresentation.
Types of implied warranties
- Merchantability - fit for ordinary use
- Fitness for a particular purpose
- Title (is good/valid)
Defenses (DUNC)
Disclaimers
Unique harm (will validate merchantability)
Notice not given timely to D under statute of limitations
Contributory negligence by P
Strict liability prima facie case
- Commercial supplier
- Defective product and not substantially changed
- Actual cause
- Proximate cause
- Damages
Absolute duty
- Higher standard applied to:
- Common carriers or
- Landowners that results in
- Strict liability resulting from
- Ultra-hazardous conditions
Reasonable alternative design (RAD) under SL/PL
- Substantially impair utility (RAD must not)
- Actually be safer
- Feasible (scientific, technological, economic)
PL tests
Consumer expectation:
- More dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when
- Used correctly or foreseeably used incorrectly
Risk-reward
- Risks outweigh rewards
- Obvious or should be obvious
- RAD (reasonable alternative design)
SL defenses
- Public duty
- Trespasser harm
- AoR
(NOTE: Acts of nature NOT A DEFENSE) (e.g., earthquake, lightening, etc.)
Consumer expectations test
Consumer expectations is met if the product is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner by an ordinary user. However, if a product is only as dangerous as a ordinary consumer could forsee, the NOT UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS.
Risk-utility test
- Unreasonably dangerous if the
- danger associated with foreseeable use of the product
- outweighs the product’s utility and there exists as a
- RAD.
This test is a multi-step inquiry which balances foreseeable use of the product as designed against the product’s usefulness for its intended purpose.
- If the latter outweighs the former, then not unreasonably dangerous.
- Then consider the obviousness of the danger and the
- effect to which an ordinary consumer should perceive the risk in using the product as designed.
- The more obvious the danger, the less likely to be found unreasonably dangerous.
