Strict and Products Liability Flashcards
What elements constitute a prima facie case of strict liability?
- The nature of D’s activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe;
- The dangerous activity was the actual and proximate cause of P’s injury;
- P suffered damage to person or property
What is the extent of liability for a trespass by your animal?
A person is liable for the reasonably foreseeable damage caused by the trespass of his animals
Is a person strictly liable for personal injuries caused by a domestic animal?
Generally, no, unless the person has knowledge of the animals dangerous propensities.
Is a person strictly liable for personal injuries caused by wild animals?
Yes. He is liable for injuries on his own land with regards to invitees and licensees.
Is a person strictly liable for personal injuries caused by an animal and suffered by a trespasser?
Strict liability is not available. However, the owner may be liable for an intentional tort for injures caused by a vicious watchdog.
What are the three requirements to recovery for an injury caused by abnormally dangerous activity?
- The activity creates a foreseeable risk of harm even when reasonable case is exercised;
- The activity is not a matter of common usage in the community;
- The injury is caused by the activity’s dangerous propensity
What is the duty owed with respect to animals and abnormally dangerous activities?
Strict liability.
An absolute duty to make safe the normally dangerous characteristics of the animal or activity. The duty is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs.
What defenses, if any, are available for strict liability claims in a contributory negligence jurisdiction?
None, unless P knew of the danger and caused the harm by acting unreasonably.
What defenses, if any, are available for strict liability claims in a comparative negligence jurisdiction?
Apply whatever the state’s comparative negligence rules are.
Is assumption of the risk a good defense to strict liability?
Yes. (Probably need some more here)
What are the theories of liability upon which products liability may be proven?
Intent, Negligence, Strict Liability (easiest to prove!), Implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, and express warranties and misrepresentation.
What are the elements of a prima facie strict products liability claim?
- D is a merchant who ordinarily deals in goods of this type.
- Product is defective
- Product has not been altered since leaving D’s control
- P was using the product in a foreseeable way
What are the three types of product defects that can be shown to meet the second prong of a strict products liability claim?
Manufacturing - the particular product is different and more dangerous than others
Design - All products in same line are dangerous
Inadequate Warnings - failure to warn of risks involved with foreseeable use
How do you prove a manufacturing defect?
P must show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect. D must anticipate reasonable misuse by P.
How do you prove a design defect?
P must show all products have the same dangerous propensity.
Is noncompliance with government safety standards sufficient to show a defect?
Yes. However, compliance with safety standards is only persuasive evidence that there is no defect.
What kind of risks are manufacturer’s liable for?
Scientifically knowable risks at the time of marketing.
Is there liability when a product is obviously dangerous and there is no way to make it safer?
No. Example: knives
How can P prove that the defect existed when the product left D’s control?
It may be inferred if the product moves through normal channels of distribution. Be aware of any alterations made by P.
How can P prove liability on a theory of intent?
P must show:
1. D intended the consequences or knew that they were substantially certain to occur.
NOTE: This is extremely rare.
Who may sue on a theory of intent?
Anyone who is injured by the product. No privity is required.
What type of damages are available under a theory of intent?
Punitive and Compensatory
What defenses, if any, apply to a claim based on a theory of intent?
The same as to an intentional tort: Consent (most likely) Self-Defense / Defense of Others Defense of Property Privilege of Arrest Necessity Discipline
How can P prove liability on a theory of negligence?
The elements are the same as regular negligence:
Duty - owed to any foreseeable P
Breach - negligent conduct leading to the supplying of the defective product
Causation - Intermediary’s failure to discover defect supersedes ONLY if failure exceeded ordinary foreseeable negligence.
Damages - physical injury or property damage required
