Strict/Products Liability Flashcards
(32 cards)
What is meant by ‘abnormally dangerous’ activity?
An activity for which a defendant may be held strictly liable for harm, regardless of care exercised.
factors to consider when determining whether and activity is “abnormally dangerous”
Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520,
(a) Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, or chattels of others.
(b) Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great.
(c) Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care.
(d) Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage.
(e) Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on.
(f) Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Give examples of activities that may be considered abnormally dangerous.
- Engaging in operations that involve detonating explosives
- Storage and transportation of explosives
- Storage and transportation of ultrahazardous chemicals
- Handling radioactive materials
- Using atomic energy or nuclear power
What must a plaintiff establish to prevail in a strict liability case for abnormally dangerous activities?
- The defendant was in control of the allegedly abnormally dangerous instrumentality
- The harm arose from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous.
In Heinrich v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., what was the outcome regarding strict liability?
The court held Heinrich could not prevail under an abnormally dangerous activity theory because Goodyear was not in control of the chemicals at the Kelly plant.
what limits are placed on strict liability as a result of harm stemming from abnormally dangerous activity
Strict liability is limited to the kind of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous.
Fill in the blank: An activity is considered abnormally dangerous if _______.
[it involves a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, or chattels of others]
True or False: A defendant can be held liable for abnormally dangerous activities even if they exercised all possible care.
True
What is the only defense to a strict liability action for abnormally dangerous activities under the traditional view?
The plaintiff’s assumption of risk
This principle holds that if a plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk, they cannot recover for harm sustained.
What happens if a plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk of harm from an abnormally dangerous activity?
The plaintiff is barred from recovering for the harm sustained
For example, a land possessor who agrees to allow blasting operations near their property cannot recover if harm results.
What is the knowledge requirement for a plaintiff to assume the risk?
The plaintiff must know of the risk’s existence
It is sufficient for the plaintiff to know there is an abnormal risk of serious harm.
Is the contributory negligence of the plaintiff relevant in determining whether they assumed the risk?
Generally irrelevant
This means that failing to discover the danger or take precautions does not affect the assumption of risk.
If Paul is texting and fails to read warning signs about blasting operations, has he assumed the risk of harm?
No, he has not assumed the risk
Paul did not know the risk existed, making his failure to exercise reasonable care irrelevant.
What happens if Paul reads the warning signs but ignores them by entering the blasting zone?
Paul has likely assumed the risk of harm
Ignoring the signs indicates a voluntary acceptance of the risk.
What is the impact of comparative fault in jurisdictions that have adopted it?
Some courts may reduce the plaintiff’s recovery in strict liability cases
This applies even if the plaintiff did not assume the risk but their negligence contributed to the injury.
Fill in the blank: Under the traditional view, the only defense to a strict liability action is the plaintiff’s _______.
[assumption of risk]
True or False: A plaintiff’s failure to read warning signs can be considered an assumption of risk.
False
The plaintiff must actually know of the risk for it to be considered an assumption of risk.
What case illustrates the application of comparative fault in strict liability cases?
Coble v. Taylor
This case demonstrates how some courts may reduce recovery based on the plaintiff’s negligence.
What is the definition of strict liability?
A defendant will be liable for damages REGARDLESS of how careful they were; negligence is NOT required to be held liable.
What are the three primary categories of strict liability?
- Animals
- Abnormally dangerous activities
- Defective products
What defines a domestic animal?
Animals that have been trained over time to live and breed in a tame condition (e.g., dogs, cats, farm animals).
Under what condition is an owner of a domestic animal strictly liable for harm caused by the animal?
The owner knows or has reason to know of the animal’s dangerous propensity.
What defines a wild animal?
Animals that, as a species or class, are not customarily kept in the service of mankind (e.g., tigers, monkeys).
Is an owner of a wild animal strictly liable for harm caused by the animal?
Yes, regardless of safety precautions taken by the owner.
