Strict Liability and Products Liability Flashcards
(10 cards)
Common Law Strict Liability
Common Law Strict Liability
Strict liability is liability that does not depend on actual negligence or an intent to harm, but is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe. When a court imposes SL on a defendant, the defendant must pay damages although the defendant neither acted intentionally nor failed to live up to the objective standard of reasonable care that traditionally has been at the root of negligence law.
Common Law Strict Liability
Claims Arising From Abnormally Dangerous Activities
Defendants engaged in abnormally dangerous activity may be held strictly liable for damages caused by that activity, even in the absence of negligence. Activities are considered abnormally dangerous if they create a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even in the exercise of reasonable care, and the activity is not commonly engaged in. The most commonly known abnormally dangerous activity is blasting or the use of explosives.
Common Law Strict Liability
Defenses to Strict Liability Claims
There are generally three defenses to common law strict liability. Assumption of risk is a defense to strict products liability. Comparative negligence is a defense where most courts will reduce the plaintiff’s recovery. A plaintiff’s contributory negligence is usually not considered a defense to strict liability unless the plaintiff knew of the danger and her lack of care caused the actitivity’s miscarrying.
Products Liability
Claims Against Manufacturers
One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm they caused. It is not simply enough that the product is defective; it must be shown that the defect existed when it left the defendant’s control. Strict products liability imposes absolute liability on a manufacturer or retailer (commerical supplier) of a defective product that results in injury to any foreseeable plaintiff. However, a strict liability products action is only available against those who are in the business of selling products for use or consumption by the public. Strict products liability applies to all commerical sellers. Purchasers of the goods as well as bystanders are entitled to bring such an action against commerical sellers.
A product will only be deemed defective and considered unreasonably dangerous if there was a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or no provision of adequate instructions or warning. One cannot sue solely for economic loss under strict PL - there must be a physical injury.
Products Liability
Commerical Supplier
A commercial supplier is a merchant who regularly deals in a certain type of goods. Anyone along the distribution chain can be held liable - the manufacturer, the retailer, the seller - if the end product causes an injury to the person or property. Single-time sellers are not part of this distribution chain and thus not strictly liable for any injury.
Products Liability: Defective Products
Manufacturing Defect
A manufacturing defect is physical deviation from what the manufacturer intended the product to be that causes harm to the plaintiff. The test for the existence of such a defect is whether the product conforms to the defendant’s own specifications.
Sellers of component parts are liable under two situations: if the component itself is defective and defecat caused harm, or if the seller of the component part susbtantially participates in the integration of the component and the integration caused the product to be defective.
Products Liability: Defective Products
Manufacturing Defect Factors
To prevail on a strict liability claim based on a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must show that (i) the product was defectively manufactured, (ii) the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, (iii) the defect caused the plaintiff ’s injury, and (iv) the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable way.
Products Liability: Defective Products
Design Defect
The product comes out exactly as the manufacturer intended. However, there was an alternate design that is safer, more practical, and cost-effective. For a design defect, there must be a foreseeable risk (risk of danger on the product that is foreseeable to the manufacturer) and a reasonable alternative design.
Products Liability: Defective Products
Failure to Warn
If there is a hidden risk, there should be a warning. If the risk is obvious, no warning is necessary. If there is a warning, the size of the warning must be examined, such as the color, labels, or pictures, to see if the warning is adequate. The standard for a warning is essentially a negligence standard: a product without adequate warnings or instructions is defective.
Warnings are not needed for sophisticated users.
Products Liability
Defenses to Products Liability Claims
Defenses to strict PL claims include comparative negligence and assumption of risk. In such cases, the plaintiff’s recovery would be reduced pursuant to comparative fault principles to the extent that the plaintiff is guilty of culpable conduct in misusing the product, failing to discover the defect, failing to perceive the danger, or otherwise failing to avert his injuries or damage in the exercise of reasonable care. In addition, if a risk of the product is inherent, it cannot be a manufacturing or design defect if the product conformed to the producer’s specifications and those specifications could not be altered.
