Chapter 6: Strict Liability and Product Liability

1
Chapter 6 Strict Liability andProduct
Liability
2
1 Strict Liability

• Defendants liability for strict liability is
  without regard to
• Fault.
• Foreseeability.
• Standard of Care.
• Causation.
• Liability is based on creation of extraordinary
  risk.

3
Abnormally Dangerous Activities

• Defendant is strictly liable for an
  abnormally dangerous activity if
• Activity involves serious potential harm
• Activity involves high degree of risk that cannot
  be made safe and
• Activity is not commonly performed in the
  community or area.

4
Wild Animals

• Persons who keep wild animals are strictly liable
  for injuries caused by the beast.
• Persons who keep domestic animals are liable if
  the owner knew or should have known that animal
  was dangerous.

5
2 Product Liability

• Product Liability is not a new tort.
• Liability can be based on
• Negligence
• Misrepresentation or
• Strict Liability
• Warranty Theory.

6
Product Liability(Negligence)

• Negligence-based product liability is based on a
  manufacturers breach of the reasonable standard
  of care and failing to make a product safe.

7
Product Liability(Negligence) 2

• Manufacturer must exercise due care in
• Designing products
• Manufacturing and Assembling Products
• Inspecting and Testing Products and
• Placing adequate warning labels.

8
Product Liability(Negligence) 3

• Manufacturers who violates state or federal law
  in the manufacture or labeling of a product, may
  be negligent per se.
• No privity of contract required between Plaintiff
  and Manufacturer. Liability extends to any
  persons injuries caused by a negligently made
  (defective) product.

9
Product Liability(Misrepresentation)

• Occurs when fraud committed against consumer or
  user of product.
• Fraud must have been made knowingly or with
  reckless disregard for safety.
• Plaintiff does not have to show product was
  defective.

10
3 Strict Product Liability

• Manufacturers liable without regard to fault
  based on public policy
• Consumers must be protected from unsafe products
• Manufacturers should be liable to any user of the
  product
• Manufacturers, sellers and distributors can bear
  the costs of injuries.

11
Strict Product Liability 2

• Requirements for strict liability
• Product is unreasonably dangerous when sold
  Defendant sells the product
• Plaintiff injured by use or consumption of
  product and defective condition is the proximate
  cause of injury.
• Case 6.1 Greenman v.Yuba Power Products (1962).

12
Strict Product Liability 3

• Plaintiff must show product was so defective
  it was unreasonably dangerous
• Product was dangerous beyond ordinary consumer
  expectations OR
• A less dangerous alternative was economically
  feasible but rejected.

13
Market Share Liability

• Theory of liability when multiple Defendants
  contributed to manufacture of defective product.
• Liability of each Defendant is proportionate to
  the share of the market held by each respective
  Defendant.

14
Liability of Suppliers

• Suppliers of Component Parts may be liable if
• Component is defective at the time of
  sale/distribution
• Supplier substantially participates in the
  design and integration of defective product.

15
Liability of Suppliers 2

• Manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, sellers
  liable to an injured bystander who did not
  purchase, use or consumer the product.
• Injuries to bystanders from defective products
  are reasonably foreseeable.
• Case 6.2 Embs v. Pepsi-Cola (1975).

16
4 Strict LiabilityRestatement (3rd) of Torts

• The terms unreasonably dangerous and
  defective are used interchangeably and subject
  to differing definitions by different courts.
• Restatement defines three different types of
  defects manufacturing, design and warning
  defects.

17
Strict Liability Manufacturing Defects

• Occurs when a product departs from its intended
  design even though all possible care was
  exercised in the preparation and marketing of the
  product.

18
Strict Liability Design Defects

• Occurs when the foreseeable risks of harm posed
  by the product could have been reduced or avoided
  by the adoption of a reasonable alternative . . .
  and the omission of the alternative design
  renders the product not reasonably safe.
• Case 6.3 Rogers v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (1998).

19
Strict Liability Warning Defects

• A product may be defective because of inadequate
  warnings or instructions.
• Liability based on foreseeability that proper
  instructions/labels would have made the product
  safe to use.
• Case 6.4 Liriano v. Hobart Co. (1999).

20
Warning Defects 2

• There is no duty to warn about obvious or
  commonly known risks.
• Seller must also warn about injury due to product
  misuse. Key is whether misuse was foreseeable.
• Case 6.4 Liriano v. Hobart Corp. (1999).

21
5 Defenses to Product Liability

• Assumption of Risk.
• Product Misuse (Plaintiff does not know the
  product is dangerous for a particular use).
• Contributory/Comparative Negligence.
• Commonly known dangers.
• Statutes of Limitation.

22
Law on the Web

• American Law Institute.
• Horitz and Levy Law Firm.
• Tobacco Company Litigation at USATODAY.
• Law Journal Extra! On Product Liability.
• Legal Research Exercises on the Web.