Products Liability Flashcards
Strict PL - Absolute Duty of Care
I. a commercial supplier owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid exposing others to unreasonable risk of harm. P need only prove product is defective as to be “unreasonably dangerous”
a. Proper Defendant: manufacturer or distributor (commercial supplier) of defective product placing product into Stream of commerce
b. Foreseeable Plaintiff: Traditionally: Must have privity
i. Modernly: any foreseeable user, consumer, bystander
Strict PL - Breach
a. Presence of a defect
b. Defect existed when it left D’s control: product was defective for its foreseeable use when product left D’s control. Cannot be substantially altered after left D’s control.
c. Compliance with government regulation: can be evidence of lack of defect, but not conclusive
Types of Defects in Strict PL
i. Manufacturing: one product departs from intended design
ii. Design: all products designed have defect
1. Alternative Design Test: alternative design available at time product was manufactured that could have been made safe w/o great increase on price/utility. Compliance with govt. standards not conclusive of safety of design.
2. Consumer Expectation Test: product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.
iii. Failure to warn: labeling of product inadequate
Strict PL Overall
Must show
- Duty
- Breach
- Causation
- Damages
Damages
P must suffer damages, often personal or property-not economic loss
Defenses to Strict PL
a. Comparative Fault: is a defense
b. Assumption of Risk: is a defense
c. Contributory Negligence: is NOT a defense
d. State of the Art: there wasn’t a reasonably foreseeable alternative design at time product was made
e. Misuse of Product: that is unforeseeable
Negligent PL
Occurs where a manufacturer, retailer, wholesaler, etc. knew/should have known about the risk of harm and failed to exercise reasonable care in making the product.
Negligent PL - Duty
I. foreseeable Ps in the zone of danger.
a. Standard of care: reasonably prudent manufacturer.
i. Retailers: only duty to inspect if reason to believe the product is likely to be defective and liable if inspection would have uncovered defect.
Negligent PL - Breach
failure to warn, inadequate warning.
Negligent PL - CX
I. actual & proximate.
a. Retailer not liable if conducted reasonable inspection
b. Failure to inspect does not cut off manufacturing liability.
Negligent PL - Damages
I. beyond pure economic loss. (not merely economic loss)
Can only get physical damage to P’s person/property.
Negligent PL Defenses
I. contributory negligence, comparative fault, assumption of the risk.
Breach of Warranties: Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Whether goods are of average acceptable quality and generally fit for ordinary purpose for which the goods should be used. Any seller impliedly warrants that the product is fit for its ordinary purpose
Breach of Warranties: Implied Warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
a. The seller knows or has reason to know of the particular purpose for which the goods are required and the buyer relying on the seller’s judgment in selecting the particular goods.
i. Bailee and lessees can also be liable here
ii. Purely economic losses recover in addition to physical injury
iii. Disclaimers are generally rejected for personal injury, but not for economic loss
Breach of Warranties: Express warranty/misrepresentation
a. When a seller makes a material misrepresentation as to the product. The warranty relied on must have been part of the “basis of the bargain”
Bailees/lessees can be liable
