Strict Liability

Front 1

Domesticated animals

Back 1

(includes farm animals) there is no SL for an injury from a domesticated animals
Exception: if the animal has a vicious propensity and you know about it. How do you know? The dog bit someone (although the owner could be negligent for the first bite.) or snarls etc.
• D is never SL for trespasser on his own land. It’s more like when your walking your dog or invited the person on your land.

Front 2

Wild Animals

Back 2

You are SL for a wild animal pet, no matter how many safety precautions the owner has made. Ex. D has a tiger and bought the most amazing tiger cage in the world. d/n matter. bar is only gonna test on a lion, tiger and bear.

Front 3

Abnormally dangerous activities

Back 3

Must meet 2 part test:
1. The activity must create a serious risk of harm even when reasonable care is taken. SL ignores safety cautions, the activity is just that dangerous
2. The activity must not be a manner of custom usage in community where defendant conducts it. It’s out of context.
Ex. crop dusting in a suburban area is out of the ordinary and abnormally dangerous.
But crop dusting in central valley- fine.
*determining whether there should be SL is a question of law done by the judge.

Front 4

Consumer products have numerous cause of actions

Back 4

• negligence, res ipsa loquitor, breach of warranty, strict liability, and a battery (someone put somethings in it.

Front 5

SL from defective product; If the following elements are met, the D is SL, regardless of whether they took precautions.

Back 5

1. D must be a merchant (someone who routinely deals in these goods or a Commercial lessors: ex. rental car company)
2. P must show product is defective. Defective is more specific than "at fault' avoid answers that refer to fault.
a. Manufacturing defect: if this product differs from all others that came off the assembly line and it is more dangerous than consumers would expect. The one in a million product. Ex. the one coke that a dead rat in it.
b. Design defect (see below)
3. The product has not been altered or tampered with since it left the merchants hands. (this can be difficult for the P, so there is a presumption the product has not been altered as long as it moves through ordinary channels. D can try to prove otherwise.)
4. Foreseeable use is not limited to what the manufacturer intended but rather how they are commonly used. Ex. P uses chair as a step-ladder- totally foreseeable.

Front 6

Design defect:

Back 6

a product has a design defect if there is a safer, practical, cost-effective way to build it. The P was posit a better design that is safer, practical (the product still has it’s primary purpose (ex. you can’t make the knife dull), and it can become significantly more expensive.
• Cribs used to made with big slats on the side and they would slip through or gets trapped and baby chokes to death. Ask: is there a better, safer, practical and cost-efffective? Yes, t/f you have a defective design and SL.

Front 7

warning defect

Back 7

• If a product has certain risks that cannot be physically eliminated in a cost-effective way, and a consumer would not be aware of those risks- t/f its is sold w/o a WARNING its defect. The warning must be clear and prominent. Ex. front page, pictures, multiple languages.
• Note: you do not escape liability by putting a warning on a physical defective products.
• IF there is a warning defect, D will be SL. Ex. company sells flammable children’s jammies. Warning is not enough.

Front 8

Product liability cases: who is not considered a merchant?

Back 8

1. The following are NOT merchants:
a. Casual sellers: people who sell their own stuff on ebay etc.-
b. Service provides: sellers of collateral products. Ex. while in the waiting room of dr. your cash breaks. Dr. is not SL. But, there may be premises liability problem if the broken chair could have been discovered upon inspection.
c. Merchants refer to every merchant in the distribution trail. No requirement of Privity. ex. macy’s, distributor, cuisnart.

Front 9

Affirmative defenses to SL:

Back 9

In NY and majority rule: comparative fault. any P stupidity or misconduct will lead to a damage reduction based upon percentages. Ex. P pets the neighbors tiger. Reduced damages. Ex. the toaster is shooting sparks- P toasts bread.