Chapter 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability Flashcards
(37 cards)
Liability regardless of fault
A person who engages in (abnormally dangerous activities) certain activities can be held responsible for any harm that results to others, even if the person used the utmost care
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
- Involves serious potential harm
- Involves high degree of risk that cannot be made safe
- Are not commonly performed in the community or area
How do the courts apply strict liability to product liability
- The manufacturer can better bear the cost of injury because it can spread the cost throughout society by price increases
- The manufacturer is making a profit from its activities and should bear the cost of injury as an operating expense
Product Liability
Tort action and can apply when product defects cause injury or property damage to consumers, users or bystanders
Product Liability can be based on:
- Negligence
- Misrepresentation (Fraud)
- Strict Liability
- Warranty Theory (under UCC)
Negligence-based product liability is based on:
Manufacturer’s breach of reasonable standard of care and failing to make a product safe
Elements to prove negligence (Plaintiff must prove)
- Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care
- Defendant breached that duty
- Defendant breach caused the injury (Causation in fact & Proximate cause)
- Plaintiff suffered an injury
Manufacturer must exercise “due care” in:
- Designing products
- Selecting materials
- Using the appropriate production process
- Assembling and testing the product
- Placing adequate warning labels to inform users of danger of which an ordinary person might not be aware
- Inspecting and testing the product
Is privity of contract required between plaintiff and manufacturer?
No, liability extends to any person’s injuries caused by a negligently-made (defective product)
Product Liability Based on Misrepresentation
- Occurs when fraud committed against consumer or user of product and injury.
- Must have been made knowingly or with reckless disregard for safety. (Buyer must have relief on misrepresentation)
- Plaintiff does not have to show product was defective
Strict Product Liability
Manufacturers liable without regard to fault based on public policy
1. Consumers must be protected from unsafe products
2. Manufacturers should be liable to any user of the product (regardless of contract privity)
3. Manufacturers, sellers and distributors can bear the costs of injuries since it is making a profit from the activity (pass costs to consumers)
Requirements for Strict Product Liability
Plaintiff must show product was so “defective” it was “unreasonably dangerous” to recover damages:
1. Product must be in defective condition when sold
2. Defendant is in the business of selling the product
3. Product must be unreasonably dangerous
4. Plaintiff must be physically harmed
5. Defective condition must be proximate cause of injury
6. Goods have not been substantially changed
How to prove a defective condition
- Plaintiff need not show why or in what manner product became defective
- Plaintiff must show product was defective hen it left control of seller
- The defect made it unreasonably dangerous
Unreasonable Dangerous Product
- Product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer
- A less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it
How can a product be “unreasonably dangerous”
Due to a flaw in the manufacturing process, defective design, or an inadequate warning label
Three types of product defects
- Manufacturing defects
- Design defects
- Warning defects
Manufacturing defects
Occurs when a product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product
Design Defects
Product is unreasonably dangerous as designed even if its is manufactured correctly
Test for Design Defects
Plaintiff must show:
1. A reasonable alternative design was available
2. Defendant’s failure to use a reasonable alternative design rendered the product not reasonably safe
Risk-Utility Analysis
Determines whether the risk of harm from the product outweighs its utility
Consumer Expectation Test
A product is unreasonably dangerous when it fails to perform in a manner that would reasonably be expected by an ordinary consumer
Difference between Risk-Utility Analysis and Consumer Expectation
Risk-Utility is more design based. Consumer expectation is consumer based
Warning Defects
- Liability based on foreseeability that proper instructions/labels would have made the product safe to use
- No duty to warn about obvious or commonly known risk
- Seller must also warn about injury due to product misuse. Key is whether misuse is foreseeable
Content of Warning
Courts apply a “reasonableness” test to determine if the warnings adequately alert consumers to the product’s risks
