Strict Liability (liability without fault) Flashcards
what is STRICT LIABILITY?
strict liability is lIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
what are the different types of strict liability?
1) liability for animals
- a) domesticated animals
- b) wild animals
2) abnormally dangerous activities
3) products liability
- a) theories of liability
- b) elements
- c) other products liability theories
what is the strict liability standard for a) domesticated animals?
an owner is NOT strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals (including farm animals) UNLESS they have KNOWLEDGE of that particular animal’s DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES that are not common to the species
**BUT injuries caused by the NORMALLY DANGEROUS characteristics of domestic animals does NOT create strict liability
what is the standard of liability for trespassing animals?
an owner is STRICTLY LIABLE for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals
What is the standard of liability for WILD animals?
an owner is STRICTLY liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals (even those kept as pets)
when will strict liability not be imposed in a wild animal case?
strict liability will generally not be imposed in favor of TRESPASSERS. To recover from their injuries from a wild animal (or abnormally dangerous domestic animal) –> a trespasser must prove the owner’s NEGLIGENCE
2) is a D strictly liable when they are engaged in “abnormally dangerous activities”?
yes! courts generally impose 2 requirements for finding an activity to be abnormally dangerous:
(1) the activity must create a FORESEEABLE RISK OF SERIOUS HARM EVEN WHEN REASONABLE CARE IS EXERCISED by all actors
(2) the activity is NOT A MATTER OF COMMON USAGE in the community
what are common examples of abnormally dangerous activities?
a) blasting or manufacturing explosives
b) storing or transporting dangerous chemicals or biological materials
c) anything involving radiation or nuclear energy
if D is engaging in an ‘abnormally dangerous activity’ how far does his liability extend?
D’s liability extends only to FORESEEABLE PLAINTIFFS. The harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity (or animal) including harm caused by FLEEING from the perceived danger.
when is strict liability not applied in ‘abnormally dangerous activity”?
strict liability does NOT apply when the injury is caused by something OTHER THAN the dangerous aspect of the activity
will the fact that a D ‘exercised reasonable care’ relieve the D from strict liability?
nope!! the exercise of reasonable care will NOT relieve the defendant of liability in a strict liability situation
3) products liability - what is it?
products liability refers to the liability of a SUPPLIER of a DEFECTIVE PRODUCT to someone injured by the product
what are the 5 different theories of liability that a Plaintiff can use in a products liability case?
1) intent
2) negligence
3) implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
4) representation theories (express warranty and misrepresentation)
5) strict liability
**if q does not indicate what theory of liability the P is using - apply a STRICT LIABILITY THEORY (easiest to prove)
VIRGINIA DISTINCTIONS - products lliability
VA courts have NOT applied strict liability in product liability actions.
However - VA allows a broad range of P’s to sue under a BREACH OF WARRANTY theory
in a product liability case - in order to find strict liability - what must the P show?
the P must show that:
1) the defendant is a MERCHANT (a commercial supplier of the product)
2) the product is DEFECTIVE
3) the product was NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED since leaving the defendant’s control
4) the Plaintiff was making a FORSEEABLE USE of the product at the time of the injury
2) the product is DEFECTIVE - what are the types of defects?
a) manufacturing defects
b) design defects
c) information defects
d) misuse of product may be foreseeable
e) nature of damages recoverable
f) disclaimers ineffective
a) manufacturing defects
if a product emerges from manufacturing different from and more dangerous than products that were made properly, it has a manufacturing defect.
The defendant will be liable if the plaintiff can show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect (the D must anticipate reasonable misuses)
This also applies to defective food products
is the fact that there is no contractual privity between the Platiniff and the defendant - a bar to the P recovering?
the fact that there was no contractual privity between the P and D will NOT prevent the P from recovering.
**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
1) the defendant is a MERCHANT (a commercial supplier of the product)
**any commercial seller can be held liable; but
- does not extent to casual sellers - will not be held strictly liable
- does not extend to SERVICES - SL only applies to products. even when a product is provided incident to a service - there is no SL. The P may sue in negligence tho
- includes commercial lessors - (i.e. those who rent rather than sell products also can be held strictly liable)
- includes the entire distribution chain – commercial suppliers include manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.
- Privity is NOT required - users, consumers, and bystanders can sue!!
b) design defects
when all products of a line are the same but have dangerous PROPENSITIES, they may be found to have a design defect.
Manufacturers will NOT be held liable for some dangerous products (i.e knives) if the danger is APPARENT and there is no safer way to make the product.
P must usually show that the D could have made the product safer, without serious impact on the product’s utility or price (“FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE” approach)
c) 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
d) information defects
a product may be defective as a result of the 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” (i.e. prescribing physician) will usually suffice in lieu of warnings to the patient)
3) the product was NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED since leaving the defendant’s control
existence of defect when product left defendant’s control –> the P must show that the product has nOT been SIGNIFICANTLY altered since it left the defendant’s control.
If the product moved through normal channels of distribution - it will be inferred that the product was NOT altered and that the defect existed when the product left the D’s control
4) the Plaintiff was making a FORSEEABLE USE of the product at the time of the injury
the P must have been making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury.
A D will not be held liable for dangers not foreseeable at the time of marketing
what is a ‘foreseeable’ use?
a ‘foreseeable’ use does NOT mean an ‘intended’ or an ‘appropriate’ use. Many products are commonly misused in ways that could be considered foreseeable.
