Torts Rule Statements Flashcards
Strict Products Liability
A commercial supplier may be strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by a defective product.
To prevail, the plaintiff must establish the following elements: (i) the defendant is a commercial supplier; (ii) the defendant produced or sold a product that was defective when it left the defendant’s control; (iii) the defective product was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and (iv) the plaintiff suffered damages to person or property.
Strict Products Liability
(1) Commercial Suppliers
Strict liability applies to commercial suppliers who place products in the stream of commerce; it does not apply to casual sellers. Commercial suppliers include manufacturers, wholesalers, assemblers, and retailers.
Strict Products Liability
(2) Defective when leaving Defendant’s control
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant supplied a product that was defective when it left the defendant’s control, but need not prove that the defendant was negligent. The categories of defects are manufacturing defects, design defects and information defects. Inadequate warnings are information defects. In a design defect case, all of the products of a line are made identically according to manufacturing specifications but are in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users because of their mechanical features or packaging. As to warnings, a product may be defective if it does not have clear and complete warnings of any dangers that may not be apparent to users. In analyzing whether a product is defective, courts have required suppliers to anticipate reasonably foreseeable uses even if they are “misuses” of a product.
Duty
1) Duty is a legally imposed obligation to take risk reducing precautions for the benefit of others.
2) A duty is owed to foreseeable victims and those within the foreseeable zone of danger.
Standard of Care General
1) The general risk reduction standard is that of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.
2) There are no exceptions for a Defendant’s shortcomings unless they are of physical characteristics relevant to the issue.
Duty (Standard - Children)
Children under the age of 5 owe no standard of care to others. Children ages 5-18 are held to the standard of a hypothetical child of similar age, experiences, and intellect, under similar circumstances; unless they are engaging in an adult activity, which triggers the reasonably prudent person standard.
Design Defect
To establish a design defect, the plaintiff usually must show a reasonable alternative to the design, i.e., that a less dangerous modification or alternative was economically feasible.
Factors that a court will consider under the feasible alternative test include:
(i) usefulness and desirability of the product, (ii) availability of safer alternative products; (iii) dangers of the product that have been identified by the time of trial;
(iv) likelihood and probably seriousness of the injury;
(v) obviousness of the danger;
(vi) normal public expectation of danger;
(vii) avoidability of injury by care in the use of the product; and
(viii) feasibility of eliminating the danger without seriously impairing the product’s function or making it unduly expensive.
Strict Products Liability
(3) The defective product was the actual … cause of the Plaintiff’s injury
To prove actual cause, the plaintiff must trace the harm suffered to a defect that existed when the product left the defendant’s control.
Any substantial alteration in the condition of the product after it left the defendant’s control may negate actual cause.
Strict Products Liability
(3) The defective product was the . . . proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injury
For proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that the type of injury she suffered was foreseeable at the time the product was placed in the stream of commerce.
Product Liability Defenses
In a products liability action based on strict liability, the traditional rule is that ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense to a strict liability action. Hence, it is no defense that the plaintiff failed to discover the defect or guard against its existence, or that the plaintiff engaged in a reasonably foreseeable misuse of the product. On the other hand, other types of unreasonable conduct, such as voluntarily and unreasonably encountering a known risk (i.e., assumption of risk), can be raised as a defense. Modernly, many comparative negligence jurisdictions apply their comparative negligence rules to strict products liability actions, thereby reducing a plaintiff’s recovery based on her comparative fault.
Negligence
To establish a prima facie case for a products liability action based on negligence, the plaintiff must show (i) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (ii) breach of that duty, (iii) actual and proximate cause, and (iv) damages.
LIbel
A plaintiff must prove
1) D made a DEFAMATORY statement
2) concerning the P
3) PUBLICATION of the statement to a third person
4) DAMAGE to P’s REPUTATION
5) if P is a public figure - falsity and fault on D
6) knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard for truth
Negligence Per Se
A statute that provides for a criminal penalty becomes the applicable standard of care when
1) Plaintiff is in the class of persons the statute is meant to protect; and
2) the statute intended to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered
Breach of Duty
1) Occurs when defendant’s conduct FALLS BELOW the level required by the applicable standard of care.
2) If the standard of care is statutory, then a violation creates a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty
* minority courts hold that violation of a statute is (a) a rebuttal presumption of duty and breach or (b) prima facie evidence of negligence
Actual Cause
Defendant’s conduct is the ACTUAL CAUSE of plaintiff’s injury if the injury would not have occurred BUT FOR the defendant’s conduct.
