Strict Liability_Products Liability

Question 1

4 ELEMENTS FOR STRICT LIABILITY CLAIM W/PRODUCTS

What is the prima facie case forstrict products liability?

Answer 1

1) MERCHANT: Δ MUST BE A MERCHANT

Strict duty owed by a MERCHANT ∆ that ROUTINELY DEALS in this type of a product
→Traps:
(i)A CASUAL SELLER is NOT a merchant;
(ii)A SERVICE PROVIDER (i.e. they offer products incidentally to services)is NOT merchant of products (iii)COMMERCIAL LESSORS ARE merchants (e.g. car rental company);
(iv)EVERY PARTY in distribution chain IS a merchant
→ NOTE: PRIVITY of CONTRACT is NOT RQD (users, consumers and bystanders can all sue)

2) DEMONSTRATED PROOF OF DEFECT
THREE TYPES OF DEFECTS

(i) MANUFACTURING DEFECT: aberration/anomalyin
batch from same assembly line
→ Product differs from the other goods off of the
assembly line in a way that makes it more dangerous
than consumers would expect

(ii) DESIGN DEFECT:
→ PROVE THAT a VIABLE and SAFER ALTERNATIVE
EXISTS
→ hypothetical alternative design is:
(1) safer;
(2) economical; AND
(3) practical/same performance

NOTE: Failure to conform to a gov’t regulation is
USUALLY CONCLUSIVE proof of a defective design
(BUT compliance with gov’t regulation is NOT
conclusive evidence of a non-defective product)

(iii) INFORMATION DEFECT/INADEQUATE WARNING
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
(location and content)

NOTE: WARNING LABEL WILL NOT OVERCOME A
DEFECTIVE DESIGN

NOTE: A large chef knife may not require a warning but
a snowblower may need a warning of sharp blades
inside

3) NO ALTERATION TO PRODUCT

   π must demonstrate that the product was not altered in    
   any way (i.e. defect existed when it left Δ’s hands)			      

Presumption of non-alteration if product moved in
normal distribution chain → Burden on Δ to prove
alteration

If π buys secondhand, then he’d have to prove non-
alteration → Burden on π to prove non-alteration

3) FORESEEABLE USE OF THE PRODUCT
The π must be making a foreseeable use of the product
→ NOT limited to intended uses, but to foreseeable
uses (e.g. standing on 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?

NOTE: NY DISCTINCTION

Answer 2

1) Injuries Caused by WILD ANIMALS

DOMESTIC: HOUSE PETS; INHERENTLY NON-DANGEROUS ANIMALS and LIVESTOCK
→ NOTE: EVEN IF DOMESTIC, S/L APPLIES IF Δ knew of dangerous propensity → PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of Dangerous/Vicious Propensities
→ NY ONLY: No negligence claim for domestic animals

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)
→ Might be able to make INTENTIONAL TORT claim for vicious watchdog

2) ULTRA HAZARDOUS / ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY
→Elements:
(i)creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm, EVEN when reasonable care is exercised (i.e can’t be made safe); AND
(ii) uncommon activity in area where occurring

→E.g.

(i) blasting/explosives;
(ii) handling of toxic chemicals;
(iii) nuclear/radioactive material

→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 NEGLIGENCE
→ 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
→ CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE is an absolute car to a claim in jrx that use the rule (MINORITY VIEW)

2) ASSUMPTION OF RISK: is a GOOD defense to S/L

3) COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
→ Apply the same comparative negl. rules to S/L cases

Question 4

What are the 3 affirmative defenses to strict products liability?

Answer 4

1) CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
→ 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 NEGLIGENCE
→ Apply the same comparative negl. rules to S/L cases

Question 5

What are ALL of the claims that can be brought for a defective product?

Answer 5

Multiple tort claims can be made for a defective product!

1) Negligence
2) Warranty Principles
3) Fraud
4) Battery
5) Strict Liability