Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapter 6 Strict Liability andProduct Liability
Chapter 6 Strict Liability andProduct Liability
22
§1: Strict Liability§1: Strict Liability
Defendant’s liability for strict liability is without regard to:Fault.Foreseeability.Standard of Care.Causation.
Liability is based on creation of extraordinary risk.
33
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
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; andActivity is not commonly performed in the
community or area.
44
Wild AnimalsWild 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.
55
§2: Product Liability§2: Product Liability
Product Liability is not a new tort.
Liability can be based on:Negligence;Misrepresentation; orStrict Liability;Warranty Theory.
66
Product Liability(Negligence)
Product Liability(Negligence)
Negligence-based product liability is based on a manufacturer’s breach of the reasonable standard of care and failing to make a product safe.
77
Product Liability(Negligence) [2]
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.
88
Product Liability(Negligence) [3]
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 person’s injuries caused by a negligently made (defective) product.
99
Product Liability(Misrepresentation)
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.
1010
§3: Strict Product Liability§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.
1111
Strict Product Liability [2]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.
Greenman v.Yuba Power Products (1962).
1212
Strict Product Liability [3]Strict Product Liability [3]
Plaintiff must show product was so “defective” it was “unreasonably dangerous”:Product was dangerous beyond ordinary
consumer expectations; ORA less dangerous alternative was economically
feasible but rejected.
1313
Market Share LiabilityMarket 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.
1414
Liability of Suppliers 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.
1515
Liability of Suppliers [2]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.
1616
§4: Strict Liability—Restatement (3rd) of Torts
§4: Strict Liability—Restatement (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.
1717
Strict Liability: Manufacturing Defects
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.”
1818
Strict Liability: Design Defects
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.”
1919
Strict Liability: Warning DefectsStrict 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.
2020
Warning Defects [2]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.
2121
§5: Defenses to Product Liability§5: Defenses to
Product LiabilityAssumption 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.
2222
Case 6.1: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products(Strict Product Liability)
FACTS:A piece of wood flew out of the lathe
attachment of a Shopsmith (a consumer power tool) while Greenman was using it, causing serious injuries.
Greenman sued the retailer and the manufacturer for breach of warranties and negligence.
The jury ruled in favor of Greenman, and the Defendants appealed.
2323
HELD: AFFIRMED. FOR GREENMAN. Greenman proved that the design and
construction of the Shopsmith were defective and that his injuries were caused by the defects.
“A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.”
Purpose of liability is for manufacturers to bear the costs.
Case 6.1: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products(Strict Product Liability)
2424
Case 6.2: Embs v. Pepsi-Cola(Strict Product Liability)
FACTS:Embs was buying groceries at Stamper’s
Cash Market.A carton of 7-Up was sitting on the floor at
the edge of the produce counter about one foot from where she was standing.
Several of the 7-Up bottles exploded severely injuring Embs.
Embs sued Pepsi but the court ruled against her and dismissed her case.
Embs appealed.
2525
HELD: REVERSED. FOR EMBS.The appellate court extended the protection
of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A “to bystanders whose injury from the defect is reasonably foreseeable.”
The court based this extension on the policy that “the loss for injuries resulting from defective products should be placed on those members of the marketing chain best able to pay the loss, who can then distribute such risk among themselves by means of insurance and indemnity agreements.”
Case 6.2: Embs v. Pepsi-Cola(Strict Product Liability)
2626
Case 6.3: Liriano v. Hobart Co.(Warning Defects)
FACTS:Super Associated store bought a Hobart Corp. meat
grinder that had no warning that it should be operated only with the safety guard.
Liriano, a SA employee, removed the guard and was severely injured when his hand was caught in the grinder. (Liriano was seventeen years old, a recent immigrant, and on the job only a week. He had not been told how to operate the grinder.)
He sued Hobart claiming that the lack of a warning about the safety guard was negligence. The jury returned a verdict for Liriano.
Hobart appealed, arguing that the danger was so obvious no warning was needed.
2727
HELD: AFFIRMED. FOR LIRIANO.A manufacturer can be liable for failing to
warn about alterations, such as the removal of a safety guard, that would make its product unsafe.
It doesn’t matter how obvious the danger is. “Even if most ordinary users may * * *
know of the risk of using a guardless meat grinder, it does not follow that a sufficient number of them will * * *.”
Case 6.3: Liriano v. Hobart Co.(Warning Defects)
2828
Case 6.4: Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand(Comparative Negligence)
FACTS:Smith was injured while attempting to start the diesel
engine for a compressor manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand Company.
Smith, a mechanic, was not wearing a hard hat when he was dispatched to start the engine. The door had to be propped open.
Smith started the engine and the door fell from its open position and hit his head causing severe injury. Smith sued Ingersoll-Rand.
Ingersoll-Rand defended that Smith’s failure to wear a hard hat and his propping the door open in an unsafe manner constituted contributory negligence.
2929
HELD: FOR INGERSOLL.The court recognized that under a
“system of comparative fault * * * , a plaintiff would still be able to recover if he was comparatively at fault for his injuries, but his recovery would be reduced in proportion to his percentage of fault.”
Case 6.4: Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand(Comparative Negligence)
