Products Liability

Front 1

Products Liability - Manufacturer

5 Theories

Back 1

1. Strict liability;
2. Negligence;
3. Implied warranties;
4. Representation/express warranties;
5. Intent

Front 2

Strict Liability - Prima Facie case elements

Back 2

1. Strict duty;
2. Breach of that duty (supply of a defective product);
3. Causation; and
4. Damages

Front 3

Strict Duty

Back 3

Commercial suppliers have a strict duty to supply safe products that are free from defects.

Front 4

Breach

Back 4

Under SLT (strict liability theory), a breach occurs if the def supplies a Defective Product and that product was Defective when it left defendant's control.

Front 5

Defect - 3 types

Back 5

1. Design Defects;
2. Manufacturing Defects; and
3. Inadequate Warnings.

A product can only be defective if it is unreasonably dangerous.

Front 6

Design Defect

Back 6

Occurs when EVERY product on an assembly line has the same dangerous propensities.
Plaintiff must show:
1. Product failed to perform as safely as the ORDINARY consumer would expect, anticipating REASONABLE misuse (consumer expectations test); or
2. that the defendant could have made the product safer with serious impact on the products PRICE or UTILITY (Feasibility or Risk Utility Test).

Front 7

Manufacturing Defect

Back 7

Occur when ONE of the products on the assembly line is more defective than the rest.
Plaintiff must prove either of the 2 elements in Design Defect.

Front 8

Inadequate Warning

Back 8

Manufacturer's failure to give adequate warnings as to the risks involved in the product.
Danger must NOT be apparent to user AND use of the warning must NOT have a serious impact on the product's price or utility.

Front 9

Present when it left Defendant's Control

Back 9

(Don't spend too much time on this. This element is usually obvious through the Chain of Commerce.)

Front 10

Causation

Back 10

Actual Causation;
Proximate Causation

Front 11

Actual Causation

Back 11

This element is inferred if the defect was present when it left defendant's control.

Front 12

Proximate Causation

Back 12

Proximate causation exists when the act and resulting injuries were a FORESEEABLE result of defendant's conduct OR the defendant's conduct was a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in causing the injury.

Front 13

Damages

Back 13

Plaintiff must prove that he/she sustained damages in the form of physical injury.

Front 14

Defenses

Back 14

Misuse NOT a defense if the misuse was Reasonably Foreseeable.
Strict Liability - most States apply comparative fault schemes.
Assumption of the Risk - The plaintiff that reads the warning label but chooses to ignore it.

Front 15

Negligence Theory of Products Liability

Back 15

Must show:
1. Manufacturer of the product had a DUTY to plaintiff;
2. Mfr BREACHED that duty;
3. The breached duty CAUSED the DAMAGES.

Front 16

Duty and Breach

Back 16

Breach of a Duty is inferred when NEGLIGENT CONDUCT leads to the supplying of a Defective product.
(NOT the same as General Negligence. DO NOT discuss entire Duty Standard of Care-Breach analysis.)

Front 17

Negligent Conduct

Back 17

This IS the SAME as plain breach breach analysis under regular negligence. Just discuss REASONABLENESS.

Front 18

Causation

Back 18

Actual Causation - This element is inferred if the defect was present when it left defendant's control.

Front 19

Damages

Back 19

Plaintiff must prove damages in the form of physical injury.

Front 20

Defenses

Back 20

Misuse NOT a defense if the misuse was Reasonably Foreseeable.
Strict Liability - most States apply comparative fault schemes.
Assumption of the Risk - The plaintiff that reads the warning label but chooses to ignore it.

Front 21

Implied Warranty

Back 21

Two Warranties implied in every sale of goods that can serve as the basis for a products liability suit.
Any BUYER, FAMILY MEMBER or HOUSEGUEST can sue under these theories and the plaintiff does not have to prove fault on the part of the defendant:
1. Warranty of Merchantability;
2. Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

Front 22

Warranty of Merchantability

Back 22

The warranty is breached when the goods are not of Average Acceptable Quality or are not fit for the general purpose for which they were intended.

Front 23

Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

Back 23

Breach when def has reason to know the particular purpose for which the consumer goods are required, and that the buyer is relying on the skill and judgment of the seller to select and furnish goods that conform to that purpose.

Front 24

Defenses

Back 24

Misuse NOT a defense if the misuse was Reasonably Foreseeable.
Strict Liability - most States apply comparative fault schemes.
Assumption of the Risk - The plaintiff that reads the warning label but chooses to ignore it.

Front 25

Express Warranty/Representation Theories

Back 25

When a product DOES NOT CONFORM to the AFFIRMATIVE REPRESENTATION made by the def.
This representation must have been part of the bargain at the time the purchase was made.
Any consumer, user or bystander can sue under this theory.

Front 26

Intent

Back 26

A def will be liability to anyone injured by an unsafe product if the def INTENDED the consequences OR knew they were SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN to occur.
If intent present, the likely tort is battery.
Punitive Damages likely available.

Front 27

Defenses

Back 27

Misuse NOT a defense if the misuse was Reasonably Foreseeable.
Strict Liability - most States apply comparative fault schemes.
Assumption of the Risk - The plaintiff that reads the warning label but chooses to ignore it.