strict liability Flashcards
(38 cards)
liability for domesticated animals
Owner NOT strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals (including farm animals) UNLESS knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities that are not common to the species.
Injury caused by the normally dangerous characteristics of domestic animals (for example, bulls or honeybees) does not create strict liability.
liability for trespassing animals
owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals
liability for wild animals
An owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals (even those kept as pets).
strict liability to trespassers
Strict liability will generally not be imposed in favor of trespassers. To recover for their injuries from a wild animal (or abnormally dangerous domestic animal) a trespasser must prove the owner’s negligence.
strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities - when is activity abnormally dangerous?
1) activity must create a FORSEEABLE risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
2) activity is not a matter of common usage in the community
(blasting or manufacturing explosives, storing or transporting dangerous chemicals or biological materials, and anything involving radiation or nuclear energy)
theories for products liability
- Intent
- Negligence
- Implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
- Representation theories (express warranty and misrepresentation)
- Strict liability
elements for products strict liability
P must show:
1) D is a merchant
2) product is defective
3) product was not substantially altered since leaving the D’s control
4) P was making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury
are commercial lessors included in products liability
most states include those who rent products
products liability - who in the distribution chain is included?
Entire distribution chain included. Privity is not required— the fact that there was no contractual privity between the P and D will not prevent recovery.
Any foreseeable plaintiff, including a bystander, can sue any commercial supplier in the chain of distribution regardless of the absence of a contractual relationship between them.
manufacturing defect
product emerges from manufacturing different from and more dangerous than the products that were made properly
D will be liable if P can show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect (the defendant must anticipate reasonable misuse).
Design defect
all products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities
P usually must show D could have made the product safer, without serious impact on the product’s utility or price (the “feasible alternative” approach).
*Manufacturers will NOT be held liable for some dangerous products (ex. knives) if the danger is apparent and there is no safer way to make the product.
effect of compliance with government safety standards
evidence, but not conclusive, that the product is not defective
effect of noncompliance with government safety standards
establishes there is a defect
information defect
manufacturer’s failure to give adequate instructions or warnings as to the risks involved in using the product that may not be apparent to users.
For prescription drugs and medical devices, warnings given to “learned intermediaries” (for example, the prescribing physician) will usually suffice in lieu of warnings to the patient.
is misuse of products forseeable?
P must have been making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury.
Dwill not be held liable for dangers not foreseeable at the time of marketing.
A “foreseeable” use does not mean an “intended” or an “appropriate” use. Many products are commonly misused in ways that could be considered foreseeable.
products strict liability - damages recoverable
Physical injury or property damage must be shown. Recovery will be denied if the sole claim is for economic loss.
relevance of disclaimers in strict product liability
Disclaimers are irrelevant in strict liability cases if personal injury or property damages occur.
product liability based on negligence - res ipsa loquitur
may be invoked if defect is something that would not usually occur without the manufacturer’s negligence
product liability based on negligence - can you hold intermediaries liable ?
VERY difficult to hold intermediaries (such as retailers and wholesalers) liable for negligence because they can usually satisfy their duty through a cursory inspection.
intermediary’s negligent failure to discover a defect does not supersede the original manufacturer’s negligence unless the intermediary’s conduct exceeds ordinary foreseeable negligence.
product liability based on negligence - who can sue
Privity with the defendant is no longer required, so any foreseeable plaintiff can sue.
product liability based on negligence - nature of damages recoverable
As with strict liability, physical injury or property damage must be shown. There is no recovery for claims of pure economic loss.
product liability based on negligence - effect of disclaimers
similar to strict liability, disclaimers are irrelevant in cases based on negligence if personal injury or property damages occur.
implied warranty of merchantability
implied in every sale of goods - average acceptable quality and are generally fit for the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used
implied warranty of fitness
implied in every sale of goods - seller knows or has reason to know the particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill and judgment in selecting the goods
