Torts II Flashcards
Restatements 520
Involves high degree of risk Likely to be great Cannot be eliminated by reasonable care Common Usage Inappropriate place Value to community
Duty of obvious risk
No duty if plaintiff knew or should have known
Duty of hidden risk
Duty if defendant knew or should have known but plaintiff did not know or should not have known
3 Requirements of Adequate Warning
Reasonably expected to catch the attention of the consumer
Be comprehensive and give fair indication of the specific risks
Be of an intensity justified by the magnitude of the risk
Woodin v JCP
Products Liability
Not manufactured defectively
Plaintiff bought freezer from defendant. The freezer 8 years later caused a fire from the cord. The court found no defect b/c there was no proof defective when left seller (age of the product and use of an extension cord)
Theories under products liability
Design defect
Manufacturing defect
Duty to warn or inadequate
Manufacturing Defect
Deviation from a blueprint causing an unreasonable behavior
3 Design Defect Tests
Risk/Utility Test
Feasible Alternative Design Test
Consumer Expectation Test
Pro Strict Liability Policies
Reduces frequency of dangerous activity
Innovation to make things safer
Party with choice bears burden
Overcoming evidence problems
Con Strict Liability Policies
Deterrence of high social utility
Deter innovation
Domestic Animal
Take by nature or accustomed to the associations of man with no disposition to escape his dominion
Wild Animal
Incapable of being domesticated and require force or skill to keep them in subjection
Strict Liability
Liability without fault
Ways v Boy Scouts
Not a product
The court found the magazine not a product b/c it portrays ideas and the physical properties of the magazine did not cause the injury by the idea it put in someone’s head
Rawlings Sporting v Daniels
Failure to Warn
The court found the plaintiff did not warn and was required to b/c they knew a helmet could not be designed to avoid injury altogether, there are limitations, it was known for a long time, the helmets do not protect against subdural hematoma, laymen think helmet is to protect the head, and injury can happen without manufacturing defect
4 Elements to Products Liability
The item is a product
The defendant was manufacturer
The product was defective at time it left manufacturer
The item caused the harm
4 Policies for Classifying a Product
American competitiveness
Accident Prevention
Insurance Costs
Regulatory systems
Classifying defendant as a seller, manufacturer, etc
Is the business of selling, manufacturing, etc
Are the immune?
The one who made the actual item caused the injury
Pavlides v Galveston Yacht
Inadequate Warning
The plaintiff purchased a boat from the defendant. The court determined that there was no adequate warning to the plaintiff of the bilge void and bilge drain b/c the manual was for a different boat, that defendant knew of danger but plaintiff did not and should not have known based on the info at the sale and no warning signs
McCabe v American Honda
Defective at leaving defendant
Plaintiff was in an accident where airbag did not deploy. The court found that it was designed defectively b/c it fails the consumer expectation test
Vandermark v Ford
Distributor/Manufacturer
The court found Ford liable b/c no matter what later retailers and distributors add to your products, you are still liable
Jurls v Ford
Manufacturing Defect
The court found the cruise control to be defectively manufactured b/c they acted differently than they were supposed to and an expert witness testified that the only way the accident could have happened was either by the failure in the dump valve to release
Dico Tire v Cisneros
Manufacturing Defect
The court found the tire was defectively manufactured b/c an expert testified that the only way for the accident to have occurred would be if the beads had not been properly sealed which only happens before the rubber is added
Healed v Firestone
Not the Specific Manu or Retailer
The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Firestone was the rim in the accident b/c the rim had been destroyed and there was more than one manufacturer who made a similar design
Consumer Expectation Test
Not, in isolation, whether the product is beyond the ordinary knowledge of the consumer but whether, in the circumstances of how it failed, the ordinary consumer can form minimum safety expectations
Risk/Utility Test
Only have to prove caused injury
Then Burden shifts to defendant to prove the benefits outweigh the risks
May be met if no other design
Aetna Casualty v Jeppesen
Is a product
The court found the charts for aviation to be a product b/c the company created their own translation and the charts are specifically used for their depictions and b/c they can cause mass casualties with only one accident
