Traditional Strict Liability

Question 1

Domesticated Animal

Answer 1

Plaintiff must prove
1. Animal was dangerous
2. Defendant let the animal roam free
3. Defendant knew or should have known that the animal was dangerous based on “specific acts of the animal trio to the injury sued upon”

Question 2

Wild Animal

Answer 2

1. Strict Liability presumes that the defendant knew the animal was dangerous, and thus plaintiff need not prove such knowledge
2. Belongs to a category generally not domesticated

Question 3

Abnormally Dangerous Activity

Answer 3

1. Unusual risk that justifies the imposition of strict liability
2. Does not matter if defendant acted with reasonable care

Question 4

Products Liability

Answer 4

1. Manufacturer’s owe a duty
   a. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger, AND
   b. its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected

Question 5

Foreseeability

Answer 5

Person harmed by the product is foreseeable to the manufacturer, then the manufacturer owed that person a duty to design, inspect and assemble the product carefully

Question 6

Privity

Answer 6

Contractual relationship between the parties

Question 7

Manufacturing Defect

Answer 7

1. Flaw in the product is there by accident
2. Maker did not intentionally make the product defective
3. It does not matter how the defect occurred

Question 8

Manufacturing Defect Test

Answer 8

1. Show the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control; AND
2. The defect was the result of the defendant’s negligence in its manufacturing of the product
   a. In the selection of the materials.
   b. In its assembly process
   c. In its inspection

Question 9

Design Defect

Answer 9

1. Foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced by adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution
2. The omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe

Question 10

Design Defect Applicable Tests

Answer 10

1. Consumer Expectation Test
2. Risk-Utility Test

Question 11

Warning Defect

Answer 11

1. Foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced by provision of reasonable instructions or warnings
2. Omission of warnings or instructions renders product not reasonably safe

Question 12

Warning Label Adequacy

Answer 12

1. Clearly indicates scope of the risk or danger posed
2. Reasonably communicates extent or seriousness of the harm that could result from the risk or danger
3. Be conveyed in such a manner as to alert the RPP-UTC

Question 13

Warnings and the RPP

Answer 13

1. Takes into account characteristics of the product’s expected user group
2. Intensity and form of the warnings take adequate account of the nature and extent of the risk
3. Specifically informs of the pertinent hazards and the means of their avoidance
4. Number of warnings does not decrease the effectiveness of each individual warning

Question 14

Duty to Warn

Answer 14

1. Product supplied is dangerous
2. Danger is or should be known to the manufacturer
3. Danger is present when the product is used in the usual and expected manner
4. Danger is not obvious to the well-known user