Torts Learning Questions - Set 8 Flashcards
In contrast to products liability cases based on negligence, those based on strict liability do NOT:
A
Impose liability when an intermediary negligently failed to discover the defect.
B
Prohibit recovery of solely economic losses.
C
Require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect.
D
Require an injured bystander to be foreseeable.
C
Unlike with products liability cases based on negligence, those based on strict liability do not require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect. Thus, for a case based on the sale of a defective product, a retailer in a strict liability action may be liable for a manufacturing or design defect simply for being a commercial supplier of that defective product, even if it had no opportunity to inspect the manufacturer’s product before selling it. In a negligence action, the supplier’s negligence must be proved.
Products liability cases based on negligence and those based on strict liability both require that an injured bystander be foreseeable. While privity is not required in these cases, and bystanders are protected and may bring a claim under either theory, they must be foreseeable. Liability under these theories applies to foreseeable plaintiffs.
Products liability cases based on negligence and those based on strict liability both prohibit recovery of solely economic losses. The types of damages recoverable under both theories are the same: personal injury and property damages. Economic loss cannot be the sole damage claim.
As under claims based on negligence, those based on strict liability will impose liability even though an intermediary negligently failed to discover the defect. The same concepts of proximate cause govern negligence and strict liability actions. The negligent failure of an intermediary to discover a defect is not a superseding cause and does not cut off the supplier’s strict liability. However, if the intermediary’s conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence, then it does become a superseding cause.
Which of the following may prevent establishing causation against a manufacturer in a strict products liability action?
A
The retailer’s labeling of the product as its own
B
The destruction of the product because of its dangerous defect
C
The failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect
D
The negligent failure of a retailer to discover a dangerous defect
C
The failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect may prevent establishing causation against a manufacturer in a strict products liability action. The same concepts of proximate cause that govern negligence and strict liability actions are applicable to strict liability actions for defective products. As with products liability cases based on negligence, the negligent failure of a retailer to discover a dangerous defect does not cut off the supplier’s strict liability. On the other hand, when the intermediary’s conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence, it becomes a superseding cause. Hence, the conduct of a retailer who discovered a dangerous defect and then took no action (such as alerting the manufacturer, warning the consumer, or removing the product from sale) constitutes more than ordinary foreseeable negligence and may cut off the manufacturer’s liability.
The destruction of the product because of its dangerous defect does not prevent establishing actual cause. If the product has been destroyed, the plaintiff may rely on an inference that this type of product failure ordinarily would occur only as a result of a product defect.
The retailer’s labeling of the product as its own will not affect the liability of the manufacturer.
Which of the following is relevant for the defendant in defending a strict products liability claim?
A
It was impossible for the defendant retailer to inspect the product because it was in a sealed container.
B
The defendant retailer made a reasonable inspection of the product before selling it but did not discover the defect.
C
The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer.
D
The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product could have discovered the defect during a reasonable inspection but failed to make an inspection .
C
The defendant manufacturer has a defense if the retailer discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer. The same concepts of proximate cause governing general negligence and strict liability actions are applicable to strict liability actions for defective products. As with products liability cases based on negligence, the negligent failure of an intermediary to discover the defect does not cut off the supplier’s strict liability. But when the intermediary’s conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence, it becomes a superseding cause. The manufacturer can argue that the retailer’s failure to take action after discovering a defect was not foreseeable and therefore cuts off the manufacturer’s liability for the defect.
The fact that the retailer could have discovered the defect during a reasonable inspection but failed to make any inspection would generally not be relevant to the manufacturer’s defense; that typically would be considered ordinary foreseeable negligence which does not cut off the manufacturer’s liability.
Whether the retailer made a reasonable inspection of the product or that it was impossible to inspect the product are irrelevant to the retailer’s defense. A retailer in a strict liability action may be liable for a manufacturing or design defect simply because it was a commercial supplier of a defective product.
Which of the following is relevant for the defendant in defending a strict products liability claim?
A
It was impossible for the defendant retailer to inspect the product because it was in a sealed container.
B
The defendant retailer made a reasonable inspection of the product before selling it but did not discover the defect.
C
The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer.
D
The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product could have discovered the defect during a reasonable inspection but failed to make an inspection .
C
The defendant manufacturer has a defense if the retailer discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer. The same concepts of proximate cause governing general negligence and strict liability actions are applicable to strict liability actions for defective products. As with products liability cases based on negligence, the negligent failure of an intermediary to discover the defect does not cut off the supplier’s strict liability. But when the intermediary’s conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence, it becomes a superseding cause. The manufacturer can argue that the retailer’s failure to take action after discovering a defect was not foreseeable and therefore cuts off the manufacturer’s liability for the defect.
The fact that the retailer could have discovered the defect during a reasonable inspection but failed to make any inspection would generally not be relevant to the manufacturer’s defense; that typically would be considered ordinary foreseeable negligence which does not cut off the manufacturer’s liability.
Whether the retailer made a reasonable inspection of the product or that it was impossible to inspect the product are irrelevant to the retailer’s defense. A retailer in a strict liability action may be liable for a manufacturing or design defect simply because it was a commercial supplier of a defective product.
A motorist driving his new sports car was stopped at a red light when he was struck from behind by a truck. The truck was driven by a driver who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the door on the driver’s side of the car flew open because of a latent defect in the latch that could not have been detected by the car manufacturer during the ordinary assembly process. The motorist, who was not wearing a seat belt, fell out of the open door and was injured. The jurisdiction retains traditional contributory negligence rules; however, evidence of nonuse of a seat belt is not admissible in a civil action to show contributory negligence.
If the motorist asserts a claim against the car manufacturer, will the motorist prevail?
A Yes, because the motorist could not reasonably have discovered the defect.
B Yes, because the car he was driving was dangerously defective.
C No, because the truck driver’s negligent driving was the cause of the motorist’s injuries.
D No, because the car manufacturer did not know or have reason to know of the defect.
B
The motorist will prevail because the car was dangerously defective. The motorist’s claim against the car manufacturer, as a commercial supplier of the product, likely would be based on strict liability in tort. As such, he would only need to establish that the car was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users in order to recover. A defective door latch would be a dangerous defect. (A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. Even if the motorist could have discovered the defect, his failure to discover it would be, at best, ordinary contributory negligence, which is not a defense to strict liability in tort in jurisdictions retaining traditional contributory negligence rules. (C) is incorrect. In cases where a force came into motion after the time of the defendant’s negligent act and combined with the negligent act to cause injury to the plaintiff, this intervening force will likely be foreseeable where the defendant’s tortious conduct increased the risk that this force would cause harm to the plaintiff. Here, negligence by other drivers is foreseeable, and the defective latch increased the risk that such negligence would cause harm to the motorist. Hence, the truck driver’s negligence would qualify as a foreseeable intervening force that would not relieve the corporation from liability. (D) is incorrect because the car manufacturer would be strictly liable even though it did not know or have reason to know of the defect.
A man purchased a new power boat with an inboard engine from a boating supply store. The boating supply store properly inspected the boat before delivery, but did not detect a virtually invisible manufacturing defect in the boat’s steering mechanism. Later that summer, the man was entertaining some friends on his boat on a lake near a dam. There were some warning pylons near the dam, warning boaters to stay clear. The man decided to show off for his friends by weaving his boat in and out of the warning pylons. As he rounded the last of them, the steering mechanism of his boat jammed, and the boat crashed into the dam. The man was severely injured. The man brings an action for damages against the boating supply store on a theory of strict liability in tort in a jurisdiction that does not apply its comparative fault rules to strict liability actions.
Who will prevail?
A The boating supply store, because it properly inspected the boat before selling it to the man.
B The boating supply store, because the man was negligent in weaving in and out of the pylons.
C The man, because the steering failed due to a defect present when the boat left the manufacturer.
D The man, because the steering mechanism failed while he was operating the boat.
C
To recover on a theory of strict tort liability, the man must show that his injuries were caused by an unreasonably dangerous defect in the boat that existed when the boat left the boating supply store’s control; (C) is the only alternative that reflects this requirement. A prima facie case in products liability based on strict tort liability consists of the following: (i) the defendant is a commercial supplier; (ii) the defendant produced or sold a defective product; (iii) the product was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and (iv) the plaintiff suffered damages to person or property. Examples of commercial suppliers include manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, and assemblers. The second element is established by proving that the product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users. A plaintiff need not prove that the defendant was at fault in selling or producing a dangerous product. To prove actual cause, a plaintiff must trace the harm suffered to a defect in the product that existed when the product left the defendant’s control. Here, because the steering failed due to a defect present when the boat left the manufacturer, that defect must also have been present when the man bought the boat from the boating supply store, the retailer. This defect rendered the boat unreasonably dangerous to users such as the man. The boating supply store sold the boat in this defective condition, and the defect actually and proximately caused the man to incur severe personal injuries. Thus, (C) states why the man will prevail. (A) is incorrect because the inspection of the boat by the boating supply store prior to sale would be relevant to a negligence action, but not to one based on strict liability. Strict liability will still lie because the boat left the boating supply store’s control with a defect that rendered it unreasonably dangerous. (B) is incorrect because ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense in strict liability actions in jurisdictions that do not apply comparative fault rules in these cases. To the extent that the man is “misusing” the boat by weaving in and out of the pylons, it is a reasonably foreseeable misuse that the commercial supplier must take into account. To avail itself of the man’s conduct as a defense, the boating supply store must show that the man voluntarily and unreasonably encountered a known risk. The facts herein do not indicate any such knowing assumption by the man of the risk of harm from the defective steering mechanism. (D) is incorrect because it does not establish the causation element. The boating supply store’s strict tort liability depends on whether the steering mechanism failed because of a defect present at the time it sold the boat to the man. If the boat was not defective at the time of sale, or if any defect that was present had nothing to do with the failure of the steering mechanism, the boating supply store will not be liable for a subsequent failure of the steering mechanism from some other cause.
A consumer purchased a grass trimmer from a hardware store. He took it out of the box and assembled it according to the instructions. He noticed that there were bolts and screws left over and some joints that could have accepted additional fasteners, but he just discarded the extra hardware. As he was using the trimmer, the housing came apart and a hard piece of plastic flew off. His neighbor, who was standing nearby, was struck in the eye by the piece of plastic and suffered permanent injuries.
The neighbor sued the hardware store and the manufacturer of the trimmer in a strict liability action. Through discovery, it was determined that the instructions omitted a critical step in the assembly process that would have used the extra hardware, which is why the housing came apart, and that the manufacturer had received some complaints about the instructions previously.
The hardware store had no knowledge of any complaints regarding any of the manufacturer’s products. As to the hardware store, the neighbor will:
A Recover, because the manufacturer had reason to know that the design was defective because of faulty instructions.
B Recover, because the consumer’s failure to recognize the improper assembly does not cut off the store’s liability.
C Not recover, because the neighbor is not a consumer and can only recover against the manufacturer of the product.
D Not recover, because the hardware store had no opportunity to inspect the product and no reason to anticipate that the instructions were faulty.
B
The neighbor will recover against the hardware store. In a products liability action based on strict liability, the plaintiff need show only (i) the defendant is a commercial supplier, (ii) the defendant produced or sold a defective product, (iii) the defective product was an actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and (iv) the plaintiff suffered damages to person or property. Here, the hardware store is in the chain of supply of the product. The product was defective because the instructions omitted a critical part of the assembly process. Finally, the omission was an actual and proximate cause of the neighbor’s injury, allowing him to recover against the hardware store. As indicated by choice (B), an intermediary’s negligent failure to recognize the danger does not cut off the supplier’s strict liability. Answer (A) is incorrect because the manufacturer’s awareness of the faulty instructions does not affect whether the hardware store will be liable. The hardware store was not aware of any problems with the product, but it is nevertheless liable as a commercial supplier. Answer (C) is incorrect. The neighbor, as a bystander, is within the foreseeable zone of danger and is therefore a foreseeable plaintiff who can recover in this action. Answer (D) is incorrect because the fact that the hardware store was not at fault and had no opportunity to inspect is irrelevant. It is liable because it is a commercial supplier of a defective product and the neighbor is suing under a strict liability theory.
A homeowner purchased a ladder from a home supply retailer. While he was using the ladder, an improperly installed bolt fastening one of the rungs gave way, causing him to fall and break his leg. The homeowner sued the manufacturer of the ladder to recover damages for his injury.
If it is established at trial that the home supply retailer could have discovered the defectively installed bolt if it had conducted a reasonable inspection of the ladder, what is the effect of the retailer’s failure to inspect?
A It has no legal effect on the manufacturer’s liability.
B It is a superseding cause that relieves the manufacturer of liability to the homeowner.
C It is attributable to the manufacturer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
D It will allow the manufacturer to bring an action for indemnity against the home supply retailer if the manufacturer is found liable to the homeowner.
A
The failure of the home supply retailer to inspect the ladder has no legal effect on the manufacturer’s liability, regardless of whether the plaintiff is suing in negligence or strict liability. Under either theory, an intermediary’s negligent failure to discover a defect is not a superseding cause, so the defendant who supplied the defective product will still be liable. Thus, even if the home supply retailer were negligent in not discovering the defect, it would not relieve the manufacturer of liability. (B) is incorrect because an intervening force must be unforeseeable for it to be superseding. Here, the failure of the retailer to discover the defect was ordinary foreseeable negligence that does not break the causal connection between the initial wrongful conduct and the ultimate injury. (C) is incorrect because there is no evidence of an employer-employee relationship for which respondeat superior liability would apply. The only relationship between the two companies appears to be a contractual one; hence, the manufacturer will not be vicariously liable for the negligence of the retailer under respondeat superior principles. (D) is incorrect because it is a reversal of one of the situations in which indemnity is available. When strict liability applies, each supplier of a defective product is liable to an injured person, but each supplier has a right of indemnification against all previous suppliers of the defective product in the distribution chain, with the manufacturer of the defective product ultimately liable. Here, both the home supply retailer and the manufacturer may be liable as suppliers in a strict liability action if they supplied a defective product. However, the manufacturer, as the previous supplier in the chain, would be liable to the home supply retailer for indemnity, rather than the other way around as (D) states.
