Torts Flashcards
Manufacturing Defects
“The lemon product”
Construction defect - item was not constructed to the manufacturer’s own specifications - didn’t follow their own design
Product ended up being dangerous in a way that consumers would not expect
Design Defect
Not just one product is unreasonably dangerous with this defect - THEY ALL ARE
The design itself makes the product unreasonably dangerous
Failure to Warn
The product is actually manufactured to the manufacturer’s own specifications, and it’s not a fucked up product, but the plaintiff is complaining that the manufacturer failed to give adequate warnings about the DANGER of the product
Strict Products Liability & Commercial Suppliers
Four main elements we must satisfy for any strict products liability action:
1) The defendant is a commercial supplier who
2) Produced or sold a defective product (one of the three types) which…
3) Factually and proximately caused;
4) The plaintiff’s bodily injury or injury to the plaintiff’s property (other than the product itself)
What is a commercial supplier?
A merchant who regularly deals in a certain type of goods
In a strict products liability action, anyone along the distribution line can be held liable. Who does this include?
The manufacturer, the wholesaler, the retailer - all three can be sued if the end product causes an injury to person or property
Single-time sellers, eBay sellers, auction sellers, garage salers AREN’T in the regular course of business
NOT subject to strict liability
Food is defective if it contains an ingredient that a consumer would not expect which INCLUDES _______
BOTH foreign material (like glass & plastic) AND natural material
Remember the difference between a commercial supplier and a service provider!
Ex. The barber is not a commercial supplier of scissors if you accidentally get cut.
If you get injured, you must pursue it in negligence.
If goods are collateral to the services, the service provider is not liable under the strict liability theory.
Commercial lessors (like car rental companies) ARE liable under strict products liability BECAUSE
their goods are NOT incidental to the service, like cars ARE the service
Manufacturing Defect
Sellers of component parts are only liable under two situations
1) If the component itself is defective and the defect caused the harm; or
2) If the seller of the component part substantially participates in the integration of the component and the integration caused the product to be defective
The RAD must be:
SAFER &
Practical (can’t make the product difficult to use) &
Cost-effective (same cost or slightly more expensive)
The fact finder will balance everything out to see if the benefits exceeded the risks
Must show ACTUAL CAUSE (if X had been X, X would have never happened)
Design Defect
Two elements: Foreseeable risk and RAD (reasonable alternative design)
When the plaintiff is saying that the foreseeable risks of a product could have been reduced or avoided by a RAD by the manufacturer, and the omission of the design makes the product unreasonably safe.
The fact that something is “state of the art” does not bar recovery as a matter of law -
there still could have been a reasonable alternative design
Government safety standards
If you follow government standards = this doesn’t mean you are automatically not defective. It’s just some evidence towards you not being defective
if you don’t follow government safety standards = your product is instantly defective
Warnings are NOT a full substitute for the duty to safely design a product
if you can implement a low cost reasonable alternative design you should do that first
Warnings come into place when there is no possible RAD. When there is absolutely no RAD, an adequate warnings can make the product reasonably safe.
Adequacy test
The warning itself must be designed so that it can
(1) reasonably catch the attention of the consumer,
(2) be understandable and show the specific risks involved with the product, and
(3) be of an intensity justified by the magnitude of risks
If a substantial part of the population could be harmed, then
a warning is required
Some products regarded as so obviously dangerous to the consumer do not need a warning.
ex. firearms, knives
Just because a label complies with federal labeling standards (such as the FDA) does NOT mean it will comply with possibly more stringent state law product labelling standards
The federal rule is the floor - the state rule can always set the ceiling way higher
Learned Intermediary
Doctrine that states that so long as manufacturer’s of drugs, medicine, or medical devices give adequate warnings to the physicians that prescribe them - their duty to warn is fulfilled
(The extent of the manufacturer’s duty to warn ends with warning the learned intermediary)
Not enough that the product is defective, it must be shown that that the defect existed when it left the defendant’s control
If a product is BRAND NEW and purchased through normal supply channels, it is assumed that the defect existed when it left the supplier’s control
Pure economic loss rule
To bring a strict products liability claim you have to allege either
(1) bodily harm, or (2) damage to property OTHER THAN THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT ITSELF
NO consequential damages
Breach of warranty claims for products
REQUIRES privity (only the purchaser and their family can sue)
can bring breach of warranty claim if the defendant represents that their product is fit for a certain purpose…and then the failure of the product to actually perform as warranted renders it unreasonably dangerous
To impose strict liability, the product must be used in both a ________
foreseeable or reasonably anticipated way
Abnormal use of the product fully negates the manufacturer of liability
Product designers and manufacturers have NO responsibility to design or warn against unreasonable or abnormal uses of a product
Abnormal use of the product must be both unintended by the manufacturer and unforeseeable to them
Whether the product was altered after it left the manufacturer
There is NO LIABILITY if the product was altered, UNLESS the alteration was foreseeable
The alteration/modification to the product MUST occur between the time it left the manufacturer and when it was used by the consumer
Strict liability will NOT apply to _______
people outside the chain of production
look for terms “product is new and unopened” to signify that it isn’t from a third-party seller & hasn’t been modified
To prove that the plaintiff assumed the risk, the manufacturer has to show that :
(1) The plaintiff knew about the product defect (they must not only KNOW THAT IT IS DEFECTIVE, they must also KNOW THAT IT POSES A RISK OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY)
(2) The plaintiff voluntarily proceeded to encounter that danger, even though it was unreasonable to do so
Proximate cause
a legal fiction that says we want people to be liable for things which were foreseeable to them at the time of their negligent actions
Danger invites rescue
Proximate cause is satisfied in the situation of a rescuer
When a patient poses a serious threat to a NAMED individual, the psychiatrist has a duty to warn or protect that individual, which could include:
1) Warning the potential victim
2) Notifying law enforcement
3) or taking other reasonable steps to stop them
Intentional criminal acts often ARE superseding causes if they are
UNFORESEEABLE
Res ipsa
The thing speaks for itself
Attractive nuisance
Imposes a special duty on a landowner when it comes to conditions that involve the risk of harm to children who cannot recognize the danger themselves.
Attractive nuisance elements
–The nuisance must be in a place where children are known or are likely to trespass;
–The landowner either knows or has reason to know that artificial conditions on the land exist and realizes that they present an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to children
–if it’s cheap to fix and the risk of injuring a child is great - this cuts against the landowner
–The condition is such that a child would not discover it or appreciate the risk
Undiscovered trespasser
No duty for natural or artificial conditions, or activities
Discovered Trespasser
Duty to warn of or make safe known manmade “hidden” death traps, and not to willfully or wantonly injure them by doing crazy activities,
No duty to warn about natural conditions
People of low intelligence are held to the same standard of care as ___
a reasonable person
