Strict Liability (Torts)
- A no fault cause of action; does not require any finding of negligence; attaches when D willingly involves himself in something that includes non-reciprocal dangers, i.e. an unusually dangerous activity; D takes on the role as an insurer for victim
Why not prohibit sale of unusually dangerous product?
The sale of such product is not necessarily dangerous; imposing strict liability on the manufacturers would inevitably cause public policy concerns for users and sellers alike (Marvin, gun gets in wrong hands)
Limited Duty Rule
- Consumer may only assert negligence against the immediate seller, i.e. the retailer, not the manufacturer - major obstacle in the path of easing restrictions for injured consumers trying to bring suits
Implied duty by manufacturer
If, to the element of danger, there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer is under a duty of care to the final purchaser (Macpherson
No fault or breach necessary for Products Liability (PL)
It is in the public interest to discourage the marketing of products with defects that are a menace to the public; if such products find their way to the market, public interest requires us to place the responsibility upon the manufacturer, regardless of
Product Defects
three kinds: manufacturing, design, and marketing (warning)
Manufacturing Defect
a physical departure from a product's intended design; if a finished product deviates, in terms of construction or quality, from the specifications or planned output in a manner that renders it unreasonably dangerous, then the product was probably defecti
Design Defect
the idea or plans for a product render it unreasonably dangerous
Alternative feasible design requirement
If a manufacturer can show there was no safer alternative way to design its product for a particular use, then the product will not be deemed unreasonably dangerous (Grinnell, pesticide-cigarettes)
marketing defect
A failure to provide customer warning of a possible future malfunction, assuming regular use
Common knowledge exception
Analogous to an open and obvious danger; a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of risks that are within the common knowledge or understanding of a reasonable person; if the nature of injury is a consequence of a common-knowledge risk, then manufactu
Defenses to PL
Qualified secondary implied assumption of the risk (SIAR) and conscious product misuse are complete defenses
PL and comparative fault
Comparative fault, or passive negligence, is no defense; the risks of using a defective product are best borne by the manufacturer, and the financial losses for adding precautionary measures can be spread over all the users (Bowling, dump bed death)