Strict Liability

Front 1

Abnormally dangerous activity

Back 1

(i) Involves a risk of serious physical harm;
(ii) This risk is present even when reasonable care is exercised by the actor; AND
(iii) The activity is not a matter of common usage.

The strict duty is limited to the dangers that would be anticipated from the activity involved; strict liability does not apply to harms that were not caused by the normally dangerous propensity of the activity.

Front 2

Defective products /Prima facie case

Back 2

(i) Strict duty owed by a commercial supplier;
(ii) Breach of that duty by the sale of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users;
(iii) Actual and proximate cause; AND
(iv) Damages.

Front 3

Defective products / Commercial supplier

Back 3

Commercial supplier: D must be a commercial supplier of the defective product, i.e. someone in the chain of distribution of the product.

Casual seller: a casual seller who is not in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling the product does not owe a strict duty to subsequent purchasers.

Front 4

Defective products / Misuse

Back 4

Foreseeable use: while some products may be safe if used as intended, they may involve serious dangers if used in other ways. Courts require suppliers to anticipate reasonably foreseeable uses even if they are misuses of the product.

Front 5

Defective products / Breach of the duty

Back 5

Breach of the duty: to establish the breach of the duty, the P must prove that the product in fact is so defective as to be “unreasonably dangerous”. If the product was dangerous beyond the expectation of ordinary consumer or a less dangerous alternative or modification was economically feasible, the D has breached that duty.

Front 6

Defective products / No substantial change

Back 6

No substantial change: To hold the DF strictly liable for a product defect, the product must be expected to, and must in fact, reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is supplied.

Front 7

Defective products / Inadequate warnings

Back 7

Inadequate warnings: in failure to warn cases, the PF is entitled to a presumption of that an adequate warning would have been read and heeded, although the jury could very well reject that presumption based on the PF’s conduct. Whether inadequate warnings made the product so defective as to be unreasonably dangerous is a question for the jury.

Front 8

Defective products / Design defect

Back 8

For design defect, PF usually must show a reasonable alternative design, i.e. a less dangerous modification or alternative was economically feasible.

Front 9

Defective products / Privity not required

Back 9

Privity is not required. Courts extend the protection to all foreseeable PFs, including members of the family, guests, friends, employees of the buyer and bystanders.

Front 10

Defective products / Seller's failure to discover

Back 10

The seller’s failure to discover the defect, even if negligent, has no relevance to whether she has a duty in strict liability. A retailer may be liable in strict liability even if it has no opportunity to inspect the manufacturer’s product before selling it.

Front 11

Defective products / Defenses

Back 11

Assumption of risk: is a valid defense to a products liability action based on strict liability. To have assumed the risk expressly or impliedly, the PF must have known of the risk and voluntarily assumed it.

Only voluntary and unreasonably encountering a known risk or misusing the product in an unforeseeable manner is a defense.

Not defenses:
Misuse that is reasonably foreseeable is not a defense.

Ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense under traditional contributory negligence rules.

Front 12

Defective products / Extent of liability

Back 12

Each supplier is liable, but each supplier is entitled to indemnification against all previous suppliers of the defective in the distribution chain, with the manufacturer of the defective product ultimately liable.

Front 13

Strict liability for wild animals

Back 13

An owner of wild (dangerous) animal is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by those animals as long as the person injured did nothing, voluntarily or consciously, to bring about the injury. However, strict liability generally is not imposed in favor of undiscovered trespassers against landowners in the absence of negligence, such as when the landowner knows that the trespassers are on the land and fails to warn them of the animal.

Front 14

Trespassing animals

Back 14

An owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals. Thus, if the animal is likely to roam and do damage to another's property, the owner is strictly liable.