Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
17 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Strict Liability
|
Liability on some kins of activities/circumstances where an actor is liable for liability without regard to the actor's fault. The plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant was at fault or engaged in tortious conduct, or intended the jury, or acted negligently.
|
|
|
Strict Liability: Wilde Animals vs. Domesticated
|
Common law divided animals into two classes wild, and domesticated. It imposed strict liabilyt for injuries inflicted by wild animanls and imposed strict liability for injuires inflicted by domesticated animals when the owner knew or should have known that the animal had harmful propensities.
|
|
|
Strict Liability: Domesticated Animals Trespassing (Exception)
|
An owner of domestic animal will be subject to strict liability for injuries it inflicts while trespassing.
|
|
|
Strict Liability for Wild Animals (WILL BE ON FINAL)
|
The possessor of a wild animal is liable for only such harms as the propensities of the animal's class or its known abnormal tendencies that make it likely that it will inflict.
For example if a [tame] bear, having escaped a zoo, goes to sleep on the highway and is runinto by a carefully driven motor car on a dark night, the possessor of the bear is not liable for the harm to the motorist in the absence of negligence in its custody. |
|
|
Strict Liability: non-natural occurrences
|
There is strict liability for one who brings osomething unusual or non-natural on to his or her land that is likely to cause harm to others if it escapes.
Case: Clark-Aiken v. Cromwell-Wright " Water Floods Plaintiff's House When Defendant who Stored Water on his higher land broke loose flooding the plaintiff's land" |
|
|
Strict Liability: Six Factors
|
(1) High degree of risk, (2) Harm likely to be great, (3) Inability to eliminate the risk with reasonable care, (4) Not a matter of common usage, (5) Inappropriate, (6) Extent that value is outweighed by danger.
|
|
|
(Strict) Product Liability
|
A seller of a product is liable without fault for persona injuries cause by the product of the product sold is: (1) in a defective condition that is (2) unreasonably dangerous to the use or consumer. Strict product liability applies not only to the product's manufacture, but also its retailer, and any other person in the distributive chain, such as a wholesaler.
|
|
|
Product Liability: Manufacturers
|
Plaintiff states a claim against a manufacturer by showoing that he was injured using a manufacturer's product in a way it was intended to be used and was injured as a result in design or manufacture that made the product unsafe for its intended use, if the plaintiff was unaware of the defect.
|
|
|
Elements for a Claim of Product Liability
|
(1) an injury, (2) Defective design or manufacture, (3) use of product in intended manner, and (4) causal connection between the defect and injury; and (5) plaintiff's lack of knowledge of the defect.
|
|
|
Manufacturing Defects
|
A manufacturing defect exists when a particular unit of a product deviates from its intended design or deviates from other ostensibly identical units of the same product line. Inference of product defect may be permitted in a strict liabilty case where the type of incident usually is associated with a product defect and was not solely the result of causes other than product defect existing at the time of its sale or distribution.
|
|
|
Consumer Expectation test
(Design Defect) |
Consumer Expectation test treats a design as defective if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
|
|
|
Risk Benefit Analysis (factor test)
|
The risk-beneft test characterizes a design as defective it its risk outweigh its benefits. Factors to look at under the risk benefit test are: (a) untility of product, (b) likelihood and seriousness of injury, (c) availability of safer substitute products, (d) ability to eliminate danger without impairing utility or raising price too much, (e) users ability avoid danger, (f) users awareness of danger, and (g) feasibility of manufacturers loss spreading.
|
|
|
Expert Testimony for Strict Liability
|
Requirement that the plaintiff show evidence of a safer alternative design can be met with an experts opinion testimony about alternatives even if the alternative design has not been tested or been subject to peer review
|
|
|
Strict Liability: Warnings
|
Manufacturers are required to provide warnings of dangers that are reasonably foreseeable in light of the intended use of the product.
|
|
|
Strict Liability in Comparative Fault Jurisdiction
|
All types of plaintiff's neglience in connection with a product-related injury will be treated uner comparative fault principles
|
|
|
Misuse of Product
|
Misuse of Product may prevent imposition of design defect liability
|
|
|
Strict Liability: Substantial Factor
|
Chrashes are within the foreseeable uses of motor vehicles. In a chrashworthiness cause, once plaintiff shows that the design was a substntial factor in producing injuries greater than those probably caused by the initial impact, the defendant has the burden of showing which injuries were attributable to the initial impact
|
