Tort - Strict Liability Flashcards
What is the prima facie case forstrict products liability?
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
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)]
What are the 2basicstrict liability fact patterns?
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
What are the 3 affirmative defenses to prima faciestrict liability?
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
What are the 3 affirmative defenses to prima faciestrict products liability?
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
What are the three areas of strict liability - DAD?
D - dangerous activities - activities that have inherent risks that are foreseeable and highly significant dangerous and NOT commonly engaged in
-(D is subjecting those around them to a foreseeable and significant danger that they do not subject him)
A - Animals (wild animals) - species or a class that is not used for domestic purposes
D - Defective and dangerous products (manufacture defects and design defects and failure to warn (lack of adequate warning) defect)
Is contributory negligence a bar to argue strict liability and what about assumption of risk (knowing contributory negligence) and and statutory privilege – two no bars (P will be able to recover) and two bars (P cant recovery under strict liability but one of these P may can recover under negligence)
Strict Liability Doctrine applies to
D - dangerous activities - activities that have inherent risks that are foreseeable and highly significant dangerous and NOT commonly engaged in
-(D is subjecting those around them to a foreseeable and significant danger that they do not subject him)
A - Animals (wild animals) - species or a class that is not used for domestic purposes
D - Defective and dangerous products (manufacture defects and design defects and failure to warn (lack of adequate warning) defect)
Contributory Negligence Jur (NO BARS) - P’s contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability, i.e., it does not bar recovery.
Comparative Fault Jur NO BARS) - in a majority of comparative-fault jurisdictions, the P’s contributory negligence DOES NOT REDUCE the Ps recovery under a strict liability claim.
(Secondary) Assumption of the Risk (BARS) - P’s assumption of the risk BARS his recovery in a strict-liability action. This defense is also referred to as “KNOWING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE”
- NB - P’s unreasonable voluntary encountering a known, specific risk and his very conduct was the cause of the risk (knew appreciated the danger AND his unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm
Superseding Intervening Causes - As is the case with superseding causes in negligence, the defendant’s liability under strict liability claims can be cut off by unforeseeable intervening causes such as P’s intentional criminal act
Statutory Privilege Performance (BARS) of an essential public service (e.g., construction of utility or sewer lines) EXEMPTS Defendants from strict liability; HOWEVER, liability may still exist under a negligence theory.
What is abnormally dangerous activity?
A small town is well known for its abundance of silver, and many residents of the town are employed as underground miners. Warning signs are posted in various locations outside of and within the mines, including in front of dangerous equipment, warning of the dangerous nature of the work. The mines use the most current methods of extracting the silver, including modern conveyor equipment, and they recently passed an inspection conducted by engineers and mining experts to ensure the silver extraction is completed as safely as possible. One day, a journalist sneaked into the mine to investigate a local news station’s allegations of labor violations at the mines. After being at the mine for a few hours, the journalist realized all miners are adequately trained, and all equipment and practices seemed to follow the most accepted safety standards. Instead of walking back the length of the tunnels to return to ground level, he decided to ride on a moving conveyor belt used to return silver and equipment to the surface. When he did so, his shoelace got caught in the conveyor belt, which then caught his foot. His foot was so severely mangled that it had to be amputated. He sued the company that owns the mines for his injury. Will the mining company be strictly liable for this accident?
A defendant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity will be held strictly liable for personal injuries and property damage caused by the activity, regardless of the precautions taken to prevent the harm (strict liability - liability without fault).
An abnormally dangerous activity is one that (i) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised; and (ii) is not commonly engaged in.
Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity exists only if harm that actually occurs results from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place.
As is the case with superseding causes in negligence, the defendant’s liability can be cut off by unforeseeable intervening causes. Here, the harm expected by mining might include damage resulting from the use of explosives, equipment used in a customary way, or even the caving in of mines. The unforeseeable use of the conveyor equipment as a means of human transport of an unauthorized and unforeseeable trespasser, along with the resulting injury, would likely absolve the company of liability. Answer choice A is incorrect because although strict liability is generally imposed when applied to dangerous activities, such liability is limited to the harm expected by the activity, and only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Here, an accident due to an uninvited guest running onto a conveyor belt meant to transport equipment and materials is unforeseeable.
what is strict liability?
Strict Liability is Sometimes called liability without fault bc D can exercise reasonable care and still be liable
A PRIMA FACIE CASE for strict liability requires (i) an absolute duty to make P’s person or property safe, (ii) breach, (iii) actual and proximate causation, and (iv) damages.
Not necessary for P to prove that the D was negligent in any way in order to recover….D owes an absolute duty to P to make that P’s person or property safe.
If P can show a breach, but for factual causation and proximate causation legal causation, that leads to damages, P will be able to recover.
What is the relationship between an owner of a land where a wild/domestic animal is kept v. the leasee of the land?
Question
The owner of pastureland permits a herder to keep several goats in the pasture. The goats wander off the land, leap over a fence properly maintained by a neighbor, and ramble into the neighbor’s garden. Once in the garden, the goats eat the vegetables growing there. In a strict liability action brought by the neighbor against the landowner and the herder, who is liable?
Answers
Only the landowner. Only the herder. Both the landowner and the herder. Neither the landowner nor the herder.
The owner of any animal, wild or domestic (other than a household pets) is strictly liable for any reasonably foreseeable damages caused by the animal while trespassing ON ANOTHER (ONE ESLE) LAND. Strict liability does not extend to the owner of the land on which the animals are kept, even when the animals are on the land with the landowner’s permission, unless the landowner also has the right to possess the animals. (correct answer is B)
Wild animal and domestic animal and watchdogs
Question
After his car broke down on the side of a country road, a driver wandered onto an adjacent property to seek the use of a telephone. Unbeknownst to the driver, the property owner bred large dogs. The particular breed has a reputation for being dangerous, and members of the breed are typically used as watchdogs. The specific dogs owned by this breeder, however, are known among nearby residents as being extremely friendly. The driver climbed over a large wooden fence to reach the property. Once the dogs spotted the driver, three of the largest dogs ran to greet him, though he assumed the dogs planned to attack. Excessively frightened, the driver attempted to jump over a nearby barbed-wire fence and severely cut his legs. When the dogs finally reached the man, they did nothing more than lick his face until their owner arrived. The driver sued the owner under a strict liability theory for the damages resulting from his injury. Is the driver likely to succeed in his suit?
Answers
Yes, because the injury was caused by the driver’s reaction to a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of the breed of dog. Yes, because landowners are strictly liable for injuries inflicted by their animals. No, because undiscovered trespassers cannot bring strict liability suits against landowners. No, because the dog was not a watchdog.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct.
A landowner is NOT strictly liable for injuries inflicted by his animals against an undiscovered trespasser, EXCEPT FOR for injuries inflicted by a vicious watchdog.
As stated in these facts, these dogs are not vicious and did not actually attack the driver, and the landowner would not be strictly liable for the injuries. It is irrelevant that this breed of dog is typically used as a watchdog and that the driver believed the dogs were vicious. Answer choice A is incorrect because this standard of liability is only applicable to owners of wild animals; owners of wild animals may be liable for injuries resulting from a fearful reaction to those animals. Answer choice B is incorrect because landowners are not strictly liable for injuries inflicted by their animals unless the animals are vicious watchdogs, wild animals, or domestic animals when the animal’s owner knows or has reason to know of the animal’s dangerous propensities and the harm results from those dangerous propensities. Answer choice C is incorrect because landowners may be strictly liable to trespassers for injuries inflicted by certain animals.
What are the elements of strict liability for manufacture defect?
Question
A college student purchased roller skates for a fraternity party encouraging guests to dress as “extinct partygoers.” She found bellbottoms and other appropriate attire to appear as an attendee at a disco roller rink. The costume was a hit, but the bellbottoms continuously got caught in the wheels of the skates. She therefore took them off, filled them with alcohol, and continually slid them across the bar to her friends throughout the night. The skates fell off the end of the bar many times. At one point as the skates slid across the bar, a wheel flew off and knocked out two of her teeth. She filed a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the skates on the basis that the skates were defectively manufactured. During trial, her attorney demonstrated that the wheels contained one less screw than should have been included according to the manufacturer’s design and that the skates were not tampered with after leaving the manufacturer. The other evidence at trial demonstrated that the repeated falls off of the bar caused the other screws to come loose, leading to the wheel coming off the skate; otherwise, the remaining screws would have kept the wheel in place. Is the student likely to prevail in her claim?
Answers
Yes, because the wheel falling off is evidence of a design defect. Yes, because the skates did not conform to the manufacturer’s own specifications. No, because she was not using the skates in a reasonably foreseeable manner. No, because the skates were not dangerous beyond the expectations of an ordinary consumer.
Rationale:
Answer choice C is correct.
To prevail on a claim for strict products liability based on a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must prove that:
(i) the product was defective,
(ii) the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control, and
(iii) the defect caused the plaintiff’s injury when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way.
Note - while misuse of a product is not an automatic bar to recovery, the particular misuse must be foreseeable.
Here, the foreseeable use of the skates is to roll across surfaces. Sliding the skates across a surface (even a bar) might be reasonably foreseeable, but repeatedly crashing the skate onto the floor from a relatively tall height is not a foreseeable use. Although the student would be able to demonstrate that a defect exists, she could not meet all the elements of the claim for products liability based on a manufacturing defect. Answer choice A is incorrect. A manufacturing defect is a deviation from what the manufacturer intended the product to be that causes harm to the plaintiff. The test for the existence of such a defect is whether the product conforms to the defendant’s own specifications. In this case, although the existence of a manufacturing defect is demonstrated, the use of the product in this situation is not foreseeable. Answer choice B is incorrect because even though the skates did not conform to the manufacturer’s specifications, the student did not use the skates in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and thus she cannot prevail on her claim. Answer choice D is incorrect because it states the standard for the consumer expectations test, which applies to a design defect claim rather than a manufacturing defect claim.
