Strict Liability

Front 1

Injury caused by wild animal

Back 1

Strict liability for reasonably foreseeable damage caused by animal

Must still prove causation and damage

Front 2

Injury caused by domesticated animal

Back 2

Domesticated = pets and livestock

Strict liability for reasonably foreseeable injuries caused by animal
IF owner has knowledge of its vicious propensities (e.g., if dog bit someone once)

Must still prove causation and damages

Front 3

Abnormally dangerous activities

Back 3

Strict liability where activity
(1) creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised
(2) is not a matter of common usage in the community

P must still prove
(1) he was a foreseeable plaintiff and
(2) the harm that resulted was the kind of danger to be anticipated from the abnormally dangerous activity

Front 4

Product liability (strict liability)

Back 4

P must show
(1) Defendant is a merchant (someone who ordinarily deals in goods of this type)
(2) Product hurt P or product is defective
(3) Product hasn't been altered since it left D's control
(4) P was making a foreseeable use of the product
(5) Damages (personal injury or property damage)

Front 5

Product liability: D is a merchant

Back 5

Someone who ordinarily deals in goods of this type
Not a casual seller
Not a service provider (e.g., repairman)
All parties in a distribution chain are considered merchants (manufacturer, retailer, supplier)

Front 6

Product liability: Manufacturing defect

Back 6

Product differs from all the other products that came off assembly line in a way that makes it more dangerous than consumers would expect

Front 7

Product liability: Design defect

Back 7

There is another way the product could have been designed that would have been
(1) safer
(2) cost effective
(3) practical (e.g., functions fine)

Failure to comply with govt regulation is proof of defective design, but compliance is only SOME evidence of non-defectiveness

Front 8

Product liability: Information defect

Back 8

Product's risks cannot be corrected; product lacks warning

Warning may need to be
- on product (not just instruction manual)
- bilingual
- in pictures

P entitled to presumption that if warning had been on product, P would have read and heeded it

Front 9

Product liability: D had control

Back 9

P must show product has not been altered since it left D's control

(1) if product traveled in normal channels of distribution, then non-alteration is presumed

(2) If product is bought second-hand, P must prove non-alternation

Front 10

Product Liability: Foreseeable use

Back 10

P must be making foreseeable use of product
Need not be intended use

Front 11

Product liability: Damages

Back 11

Must show personal injury or property damage
NO recovery based solely on economic loss

Front 12

Affirmative defenses: Comparative responsibility

Back 12

Defense to all strict liability suits

Front 13

Defense to strict products liability claim

Back 13

Retailer discovered defect during course of inspection but failed to warn buyer (no liability for manufacturer)

Front 14

Contributory negligence jurisdiction

Back 14

Complete defense if P was injured by unreasonably using the product knowing it was defective