BUS 315: Chapter 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability
defenses to product liability
# of ___ ~no basis for plaintiff's claim, can show that have not met requirements (such as causation) for an action in negligence. ~strict product liability, can show that plaintiff failed to meet one of the requirements. ex defendant shows that the goods were altered after they were sold.
strict product liability (matter of public policy)- rests on the threefold assumption that:
1. Consumers should be protected against unsafe products 2. Manufacturers and distributors should not escape liability for faulty products simply because they are not in privity of contract w/ the ultimate user of those products. 3. Manufacturers and distributors can better bear the costs associated w/ injuries caused by their products- because they can ultimately pass the costs on to all consumers in the form of higher prices.
Manufacturers must use due care in all of the following areas:
1. Designing the product 2. Selecting the materials 3. Using the appropriate production process 4. Assembling and testing the product 5. Placing adequate warnings on the label to inform the user of dangers of which an ordinary person might not be aware 6. Inspecting and testing any purchased components used in the product.
requirements for strict product liability
1. The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it. 2. The defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling (or otherwise distributing) that product. 3. The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective condition (in most states). 4. The plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by use or consumption of the product. 5. The defective condition must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage. 6. The goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained.
product liability is a matter of social policy and is based on two factors
1. the manufacturer can better bear the cost of the injury because it can spread the cost throughout society by increasing the prices of its goods 2. the manufacturer is making a profit from its activities and therefore should bear the cost of injury as an operating expense.
manufacturing defects, design defects, inadequate warnings
3 types of product defects traditionally recognized in product liability law
1. Designing the product 2. Selecting the materials 3. Using the appropriate production process 4. Assembling and testing the product 5. Placing adequate warnings on the label to inform the user of dangers of which an ordinary person might not be aware 6. Inspecting and testing any purchased components used in the product.
Manufacturers must use due care in all of the following areas:
assumption of risk
___ _ _ can sometimes be used as a defense in a product liability action. to establish this, defendant must show: 1. the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk created by the product defect 2. the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk- by express agreement or by words or conduct- even though it was unreasonable to do so (ex if buyer failed to heed a seller's product recall. ex. tanning bed example 151)
privity of contract
___ _ __ refers to the relationship that exists b/w parties to a contract. ___ is the reason that normally only the parties to a contract can enforce that contract. in the context of product liability law, ___ is not required. person who is injured by a defective product may bring a negligence suit even though they were not the one who actually purchased product. manufacturer, seller, lessor is liable for failure to exercise due care to ANY PERSON who sustains an injury proximately caused by negligently made product.
market share liability
a court can hold each manufacturer responsible for a percentage of the plaintiff's damages that is equal to the percentage of its market share. (used for products when you can't tell who made what)
product misuse
a defense against product liability that may be raised when the plaintiff used a product in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. if the misuse is reasonably foreseeable, the seller will not escape liability unless measures were taken to guard against the harm that could result from the misuse.
manufacturing defect
a product "contains a _____ __ when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of a product." departure from design specifications that results in products that are physically flawed, damaged, or incorrectly assembled. (ex glass bottle that explodes) (usually happen when quality control is not up to par. expert testimony often used to help decide cases).
foreseeable misuses
a seller must warn those who purchase its product of the harm that can result from the ____ __ of the product as well. key is the ____ity for the __. sellers are not required to take precautions against every conceivable misuse of the product, just those that are foreseeable.
statute of repose
basically, a statute of limitations that is not dependent on the happening of a cause or action. statutes of repose generally begin to run at an earlier date and run for a longer period of time than statutes of limitations. ex statute may require that claims be brought w/in 12 years from date of sale or manufacture of defective product. if does not bring action before prescribed period expires, seller cannot be liable.
commonly known dangers
dangers associated w/ certain products (ex matches, sharp knives) are so commonly known that, as mentioned, manufacturers need not warn users of these dangers. if a defendant succeeds in convincing the court that the plaintiff's injury resulted from a ___ _ __, the defendant will not be liable. (ex exercise rope that led to detached retina. "almost every physical object can be inherently / potentially dangerous in a sense. law does not require manufacturers to warn of such common dangers)
preemption
government regulations preempt claims for product liability. an injured party may not be able to sue the manufacturers of defective products that are subject to comprehensive federal regulatory schemes. ex medical devices.
knowledgeable user
if a particular danger (such as electrical shock) is or should be commonly known by particular users of a product (such as electricians), the manufacturer need not warn these users of the danger ex. McDonald's food, can't sue because you get fat
unreasonably dangerous product
in product liability, a product that is defective to the point of threatening a consumer's health and safety. a product will be considered _____ ___ if it is 1) dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer or 2) if a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it.
product liability
legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users, and bystanders from injuries or damages that are caused by the goods.
strict liability
liability regardless of fault. in tort law, ___ _____ may be imposed on defendants in cases involving abnormally dangerous activities, dangerous animals, or defective products. (person who engages in certain kinds of activities can be held responsible for any harm that results to others, even if the person used the utmost care) (ex mill owners had reservoir on land, responsible if keep anything on land that will cause damage if escapes; (wild) animals)
design defects
made in conformity w/ the manufacturer's design specifications, nevertheless, the product results in injury to the user because the design itself was faulty. product is "defective in __ when the foreseeable risks of harm imposed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.
risk utility analysis
most courts engage in _ ____ ____ to determine whether the risk of harm from the product as designed outweighs its utility to the user and to the public. (ex Bullock v Philip Morris USA-> cigarettes - had been enough evidence that they caused lung cancer, PM ignored and said that it wasn't true. jury disagreed, awarded compensatory damages 850k and millions in punitive damages.reviewing court agreed, but remanded the case for reconsideration of the proper amount of punitive damages. )
consumer expectation test
other courts apply the consumer expectation test to determine whether a product's design was defective. under this test, a product is unreasonably dangerous when it fails to perform in the manner that would reasonably be expected by an ordinary consumer. (ex Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox- new style of mask, hickox was injured by errant ball. a reasonable juror could infer that an ordinary consumer would have expected the mask to disperse rather than concentrate energy. a reasonable juror could conclude that an ordinary consumer would have expected the mask to perform more safely than it did. hickox won)
inadequate warnings
product will be considered defective "when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor... and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe." (content of __: court consider content and comprehensibility and intensity of expression. also characteristics of expected user group. courts apply "reasonableness" test to determine if warnings adequately alert consumers to the products risks. (ex Johnson v Medtronic pg 148)
1. The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it. 2. The defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling (or otherwise distributing) that product. 3. The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective condition (in most states). 4. The plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by use or consumption of the product. 5. The defective condition must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage. 6. The goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained.
requirements for strict product liability
statutes of limitation
restrict the time within an action may be brought. statute of limitations for product liability cases varies according to state law. usually, the injured party must bring a product liability claim w/in 2-4 years. often, running of the prescribed period is tolled (suspended) until the party suffering an injury has discovered it or should have discovered it.
abnormally dangerous activities
strict liability for damages proximately caused by an ___ ___ ___ (aka ultrahazardous) is one application of strict liability. courts apply the doctrine of strict liability because of the extreme risk of the activity. these types of activities involve a high risk of serious harm to persons or property that cannot be completely guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care. (Ex blasting/ storing explosives)
tolling
temporary suspension of the running of a prescribed period (such as a statute of limitations). for instance, a statute of limitations may be tolled until the party suffering an injury has discovered it or should have discovered it.
negligence
the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. manufacturer fails to exercise "due care" to make a product safe, person who is injured by product can sue the manufacturer for ______.
obvious risks
there is no duty to warn about risks that are ___ or commonly known. warnings about such risks do not add to the safety of the product and could even detract from it by making other warnings seem less significant. (ex kid on trampoline did backflip and was paralyzed. 9 warning labels on trampoline--> made it ___) also, remember risks may not be ___ to all users, like young children.
1. a reasonable alternative design was available 2. the defendant's failure to adopt the alternative design rendered the product not reasonably safe. (aka, defendant is only liable when the harm was reasonably preventable)
to successfully assert a design defect, a plaintiff has to show that
comparative negligence (fault)
when proved, ____ ___ differs from other defenses in that it does not completely absolve the defendant from liability, but it can reduce the total amount of damages that will be awarded to the plaintiff (ex mechanic w/o a hard hat, hit w/ a door and suffered seizures. propped the door in an unsafe manner. court ruled that the defendants can use the plaintiff's ordinary negligence to reduce their liability proportionately)
tort of fraud (etc)
when user/ consumer is injured due to manufacturer's/ seller's fraudulent misrepresentation, the basis of liability may be the _ _ _. misrepresentation must have been made knowlingly or w/ reckless disregard for the facts. (Ex intentional mislabeling of cosmetics or intentional concealment of product defects.) misrepresentation must be of a material fact, and seller must have intended to induce the buyer's reliance on the misrepresentation. buyer must have relied on misrepresentation.
other applications of strict product liability
~courts extend the strict liability of manufacturers and other sellers to injured bystanders ~strict product liability also applies to suppliers of component parts