Torts FA24 Final Flashcards
(44 cards)
3R products liability
One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is liable for harm caused
Duty
Merchants have a duty not to sell products in a defective condition dangerous to anyone who foreseeably may use the product
crashworthiness doctrine
motor vehicle manufacturers have a duty to make their product crashworthy. May be held liable in neg or SL where defect–though not cause of accident–caused or enhanced injuries
When does SL/PL not apply?
- to one who primarily provides a service, even if providing a service is incidentally involved (defective prosthetic knee by hospital)
- When product injures itself (pure economic harm)
Breach:
Prove product is defective
Manufacturing defect
when the product departs from its intended design, even though all possible care was exercised in prep and marketing of product; P may sue anyone in the chain of distribution as long as defect existed at the time product was sold
Design defect
Product itself is flawed due to problems in the original design.
Prove by:
1. 3R Risk Benefit: foreseeable risks of harm could be avoided by adopting a reasonable alternative design
2. 2R Risk benefit: product defective if jury determines manufacturer knew/should have known risk of harm, and that risk outweighs the benefits of such a design
3. 2R Consumer expectation: fails to perform as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in a foreseeable manner
4. 3R CE: (RIL) infer defect when the injury is the type that ordinarily occurs as a result of defect
OR Reasonably foreseeable misuse–> products may be defective in design if manufacturer knew or should know safety feature would be disabled; and safety feature not meant to be disabled. NO duty to manufacture a product that is impossible to abuse
Failure to warn
product is defective bc of inadequate warnings or instructions when the foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable instructions or warnings, and omission renders product not reasonably safe
FTW elements
warning must (1) adequately indicate scope of danger, (2) reasonably communicate extent or seriousness of harm that could result, (3) alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger, and (4) use adequate means to convey the warning
simple directive warnings
may be inadequate, but generally not if not many similar incidents–> Hood v. Ryobi
learned intermediary doctrine
drug manufacturer’s duty to warn extends only to prescribing provider, who acts as learned intermediary between manufacturer and consumer. Centocor
Exception: when drug is advertised to general public
Cause: Modification rule (strong minority)
when a third party’s modification makes a safe product unsafe, the seller is relieved of liability, even if modification is foreseeable bc chain of causation is broken.
Reasonably foreseeable misuse (majority)
Even when a third party’s modification makes a safe product unsafe, manufacturer has duty to warn of danger of unintended uses of a product if those uses are reasonably foreseeable
Cause (1) defect existed when product was sold
Presumption defect existed when product was sold. Welge. Burden shifts to merchants to prove they weren’t the ones who introduced defect
Cause: (2) defect caused harm
But for: but for defect, injury would not have occurred/been made worse
Proximate cause: customer was using product in foreseeable way
compensatory damages
return P as closely as possible to condition before the injury
- includes past and future pecuniary and non pecuniary harm
pecuniary harm
compensates quantifiable losses–> past and future medical expenses, past and future lost income
non-pecuniary harm
losses/harm that is not quantifiable, but juries do their best–> pain and suffering [requires awareness]. loss of enjoyment [may/may not require awareness]
Parties can move for new trial on grounds of excessive/insufficient damages, trial judge decides whether to grant; or
parties can appeal on grounds of excessive damages, but damages have to be so excessive as to shock the conscience
remittitur
judge lowers damages and P has to accept
additur
judge increases damages and P has to accept
survival actions
brought by estate
wrongful death/loss of consortium
may be brought by heirs or beneficiaries
punitive damages
may be awarded for intentional or reckless conduct
Employer liable for punitive damages only if conduct was engaged in by. or authorized by, principal or managerial agent
