Chapter 5 - Product liability

In a situation in which market-share liability is imposed, the

plaintiff need not prove which particular distributor of a widely distributed product caused his or her injury.

Statutes of Limitations and Repose

Typically requires that an action be brought within a specified period after the plaintiff's cause of action accrued, or within a specified period after plaintiff discovered or should have discovered her injuries. -No matter when you were hurt, SLR starts the day the product was manufactured. -Don't want manufactures to have liability forever

About Market Share Liability

-Usually, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant manufactured the defective product -Exception: in some cases, plaintiffs have been permitted to sue any or all manufacturers of an allegedly defective product -In these cases, the products manufacturers or distributors may be held liable in proportion to each firm's respective share of the market -Meaning, any manufacturer who was producing during that time are liable

When is Strict Liability Imposed?

1. Abnormally dangerous Activities: -Use of Dynamite -Involves serious potential harm to persons or property -Involves high degree of risk that cannot be completely guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care 2. Activities involve dangerous animals -Dangerous domestic animal 3. Common Carrier Bailments: One who transports goods of the public for a fee (always liable) 4. Product Liability: Manufacturers sellers or lessors liability to consumers, users and bystanders for... -Physical harm or property damage -Warranty Liability (covered in chapter 11 section)

The manufacturer can be liable for its negligence in a number of different areas...

1. Designing the product 2. Selecting materials 3. Using appropriate production processes (Ex. volkswagon seatbelt malfunction) 4. Assembling and testing of the product 5. Placing adequate warnings on the product

Types of Unreasonably Dangerous Product claims:

1. Manufacturing flaw "...when the product departs from its intended design, even though all possible care was exercised ..." 2. Design defect A product is defectively designed if "...could have reduced/avoided a foreseeable risk of harm by adopting a reasonable alternative design..." & Not adopting alternate design renders...not reasonably safe 3. Inadequate warning A warning is defective if "foreseeable risks of harm...could have been reduced/avoided by...reasonable warnings or instructions" and Omitting warnings...renders product "not reasonably safe".

Product Liability Defenses

1. Plaintiff failed to prove 1 or more of the 6 requires for strict product liable. 2. Preemption: Defense that has been successfully raised by defendants in recent years. -Government regulations preempt claims for product liability. 3. Assumption of risk: Defendant must show.. -Plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk created by the product defect -Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, by express agreement or by words or conduct, even through it was unreasonable to do so. 4. Product misuse: Occurs when a product is used for a purpose for which it was not intended. 5. Comparative negligence: Comparing negligence and damage. 6. Commonly-known danger 7. Knowledgeable user

Strict product liability is imposed if...

1. Product is defective when Defendant sells it 2. Defendant is normally engaged in the business of selling or distributing the product in question 3. Product is unreasonably dangerous to user or consumer because of its defective condition 4. Plaintiff suffers physical harm to self or property as a result of using or consuming the product 5. Defective condition proximately causes Plaintiff's harm 6. Product had not been substantially changed

Statutes of Repose

Ensures that sellers and manufacturers will not be left vulnerable to lawsuits indefinitely. It places outer time limits on product liability actions. Regardless of whether plaintiff has discovered his/her injuries, SR sets absolute outer limits on time w/I which action must be brought

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.

Bailment

A situation in which one has possession of goods, but not title.

The modern concept of strict liability traces its origins, in part, to what famous English case?

Rylands v. Fletcher.

Product Liability

Is a manufacturer's, seller's or lessor's liability to consumers, users and bystanders for... -Physical harm caused by the goods -Property damage caused by the goods -Warranty Liability

Negligence

Is a manufacturers liability for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustained an injury proximately caused by the manufacturer's negligence.

Other Action Under Tort Law: Misrepresentation

Manufacturer may also be liable for any material misrepresentation made to a consumer or user of the product if the misrepresentation causes the consumer or user to suffer some injury -To be actionable, misrep/omission must have been made with intent by maker that the consumer or user rely and then that person must rely

Strict Product Liability: The liability for someone's product

Manufacturer/seller/lessor of goods will be liable, regardless of intent or the exercise of reasonable care, for any personal injury or property damage to consumers/users/bystanders caused by the goods it manufactured/sells/leases if we have six different criteria met

Strict Liability

Means liability regardless of fault.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Must have been made knowingly or w/ reckless disregard for facts [scienter] Scienter is a legal term that refers to intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. This means that an offending party has knowledge of the "wrongness" of an act or event prior to committing it.

Actions Brought Under Tort Law

Negligence (privity of contract is not required) -Is a manufacturers liability for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustained an injury

Obvious Risk

No duty to warrant

Unreasonably Dangerous Products

Product is so defective (when sold, rented or manufactured) as to threaten a consumer's health and safety, either because the product is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer OR a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible, but the manufacturer failed to produce it.

Which of the following is not a requirement for strict product liability?

The goods must have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury occurred.

Foreseeable Misuse

There IS a duty to warrant

A valid defense to a product liability claim is

assumption of risk.

Most states apply a legal standard that takes into account the degree of negligence on the part of both the defendant and the plaintiff. This standard is known as the

comparative negligence standard.

One of the public-policy assumptions underlying the imposition of strict product liability is that

consumers should be protected from unsafe products.

Marco sues Rocket Cola, claiming that he suffered injuries as a result of an explosion of one of its bottles from which he was drinking. To succeed in his lawsuit, Marco must show that Rocket Cola

departed from its design specifications for the bottle.

Suppose that a manufacturer fails to exercise 'due care' in its efforts to make a product safe, and as a result, someone is injured. In this situation, the manufacturer may be held liable for

negligence

Glen is a dairy farmer who owns five hundred milk cows. His fences are in poor repair, and his cows are often found eating the grass on Hank's land. Hank believes that Glen is responsible for damages to Hank's land on a theory of strict liability. The court will most likely find that Glen is

none of these are correct.

Under the tort doctrine of strict liability, liability is

not based on the actor's negligence or intent to harm.