Strict Liability Flashcards
(20 cards)
Prima facie case of strict liability
1) the nature of the defendant’s activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe
2) the dangerous aspects of the activity was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury
3) plaintiff suffered damage to person or property.
Liability for animals
1) an owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals.
2) an owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals.
3) an owner is not strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals unless he has knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities that are not common to the species.
Abnormally dangerous activities
Two requirements for finding an activity to be abnormally dangerous:
1) activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
2) activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.
Scope of duty owed in strict liability cases
The duty owed is the absolute duty to make safe the abnormally dangerous characteristics of that animal or activity.
Defenses to strict liability
In contributory negligence states contributory negligence is no defense if plaintiff has failed to realize the danger or guard against it.
It is a defense if plaintiff knew the danger and his unreasonable conduct was a very cause of the harm for the wild animal or abnormally dangerous activity.
Assumption of the risk is a good defense to strict liability
Additional elements to prove products liability
1) defect
2) existence of the defect when the product left defendant’s control
Types of defects
1) manufacturing defects
2) design defects
3) inadequate warnings
Manufacturing defect
If a product emerges from manufacturing different and more dangerous than the products that were properly made it has a manufacturing defect
Design defect
When all products of the same line have dangerous propensities they may be found to have a design defect
Proving a manufacturing defect
For a manufacturing defect defendant will be liable if plaintiff can show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.
Proving a design defect
For a design defect plaintiff usually must show that the defendant could have made the product safer without serious impact on the products price or utility
Government safety standards
A product’s noncompliance with government safety standards establishes that it is defective while compliance with safety standards is evidence but not conclusive that the product is not defective
Unavoidably unsafe product
Manufacturers will not be held liable for some dangerous products, like knives, if the danger is apparent and there is no safer way to make the product.
Existence of defect when product left defendant’s control
This will be inferred if the product moved through normal channels of distribution
Products liability based on negligence
Prima facie case is the same as negligence.
Products liability based on strict tort liability
Prima facie case:
1) strict duty owed by commercial supplier of a product
2) production of or sale of a defective product
3) actual proximate cause
4) damages
Who can sue under strict tort liability
Users consumers and bystanders can sue.
For liability to attach the product must reach plaintiff without substantial alteration.
Strict products liability applies only to products, not to services.
Two warranties that allow for suit by a buyer against the seller
Warranty of merchantability
Warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
What are domestic animals
Farm animals are considered domestic animals
Duty of care of doctors to pregnant women
Doctors of a pregnant women owe duty to both mother and child not to act negligently.
