Chapter 7 Flashcards
(48 cards)
What are applications of strict liability?
- Abnormally dangerous activities
- Keeping wild animals
- Keeping domestic animals (qualified)
- Quid pro quo sexual harrassment
Strict Liability
“No fault liability”
Liability without regard to fault (automatic liability) focused on the nature of the situation instead of the actor’s actions
Rylands v Fletcher
There has to be situations where liability exists even when there is no intent
“If there is something you keep on your land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, you are liable for the harm that happens”
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
- involves a potential degree of serious harm;
- involves a high degree risk that cannot be completely guarded against with the use of reasonable care; AND
- It is not commonly performed in the community or area
What are examples of abnormally dangerous activities that qualify for strict liability?
Skydiving
Keeping Explosives
Toxic Chemicals
What are wild animals that are classified as strict liability?
Lions, Tigers, Bears
Keeping Domestic Animals (qualified)
Dog is the most sued over
Only strictly liable if you have a reason to know that it is dangerous
What breed of dog are you strictly liable for owning?
A PITBULL - equivalent to owning a wild animal
Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment
“This for That”
Harassment = discrimination
Supervisory power: trading workplace favors for sexual favors
Employer is liable for this
(Not usually sent to a jury because it is an automatic liability)
What would tell you that an animal is dangerous?
It has bitten before or it has been abused
Product Liability
Lawsuits involving facts of the company selling/making a product that is the cause of plaintiff injuries
Plaintiff can possibly sue the entire chain of production (manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, retailer, etc.)
Product Liability Based on Negligence
If a manufacturer fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacturer for negligence
Due care is required in 6 areas of products
Design, production processes, assembling, testing, warnings.
Privity of Contract with Product Liability
NOT required
You do not have to be the purchaser to sue for negligence
MacPherson v Buick Motor Co.
First case of a PRODUCT being held liable. Alleging that Buick was negligence in making a car. Wheels were made of wood, wood was rotten. Buick should have discovered that the wood was rotten - duty breeched
Elements of Product Liability Based on Negligence
- Due Care
- Privity of Contract not required
- Plaintiff must show Defendant’s conduct was the cause in fact and proximate cause of the injuries suffered
Product Liability Based on Misrepresentation
Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Fraud), Misrepresentation of a material fact concerning quality, nature or approximate use of the product is made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth (as a result of the fraud, injury occurs and the buyer/plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation)
What is an example of product liability based on misrepresentation?
Intentional mislabeling of products or concealment of product defects (the company has knowledge)
Strict Product Liability
- Defective Condition
- Unreasonably Dangerous Products
- Manufacturing Defects
- Design Defects
- Warning Defects
Public Policy Justifications (Why hold a maker strictly liable for a defective product?)
- Consumers should be protected against unsafe products;
- Manufacturers should not escape liability for defective products just because not in privity with injured person; and
- Manufacturers and sellers are in a better position to bear the costs associated with injuries caused by their products
Greenman v Yuba Power Tools
Ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers… rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves
Requirements for Strict Product Liability (6 Elements)
- The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it
- The defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling (or distributing) the product
- The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of a defective condition
- The plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by use of consumption of the product
- The defective condition must be the proximate cause of injury
- The goods must not have been substantially changed from the time sold to the time of injury
Proving Defective Condition
- Defective when sold
- Unreasonably dangerous (dangerous beyond exception or economically feasible)
- Prove one of the three defects
- If the defendant can prove that the product was changed after sale by the plaintiff - the plaintiff cannot win
Unreasonably Dangerous Products
- The product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer; or
- A “Safer Alternative Design” was economically feasible, but the manufacturer failed to produce it
