• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/6

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

6 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews

-Whether D standing on ground & starting tractor = misuse of product so as to be an absolute limitation on P's liability




-D dragged under a tractor and killed when he started the tractor while standing next to it.




-Tractor started while in gear, but was equipped with a safety switch designed to prevent this from occurring.




-Court: D failure to check to make sure tractor was not in gear was foreseeable.




-A manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by abnormal or unintended use of its product, only if such use is not reasonably foreseeable.





Daly v. General Motors Corp.



-Whether the principle of comparative negligence applies to actions founded on strict products liability




-P killed when thrown from his car; car allegedly had a defective door latch; wasn't buckled in, was drunk; P's family brought suit.




-Court: strict liability has never been intended to be absolute liability, causing manufct'r to become insurer of the safety of the product's user.




-The principle of comparative negligence can be applied in strict products liability cases to reduce a plaintiff's recovery.




*comparative negligence -- partial defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury.



Friedman v. General Motors Corp.

-Whether P introduced evidence of a sufficient quality to overcome D's MDV




-P and his family injured in their car, manfctr'd by D, when the car started with the transmission in the drive position and lurched forward, caused an accident; D claimed P failed to introduce sufficient evidence to overcome an MSJ.




-Ps may prove mfctr'ing defect through use of circumst'l evidence, so long as a preponderance of the ev. establishes that the accident was caused by the defect rather than other possibilities.

Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.

-Whether D in a PL action based on a failure to warn of a risk of harm is allowed to present state of the art evidence that the D had no knowledge of the harm that could occur




-P allegedly injured from exposure to asbestos materials mfctr'd by D; D claimed it didn't warn of potential dangers b/c no scientific knowledge at time of mfctr that the product was potentially dangerous.




-Court: mfctr must provide warnings if it is or should be aware of potential dangers, but it's unjust to impose liability for failure to warn when mfctr had no way of knowing of the potential danger.




-Knowledge/knowability is a component of strict liability for failure to warn.

O'Brien v. Muskin Corp.

-Did TC err by not permitting jury to determine if risks of injury assct'd with pool so outweighed the utility of product as to constitute defect? Yes.




-P injured when he dove into an above ground pool designed and mfctr'd by D; P brought suit claiming D was strictly liable for defectively designed pool.




-Based on risk utility analysis, a D may be liable for a design defect even if his product complied w/existing level of technological advances at the time of design.




1. Usefulness and desirability of product


2. Safety aspects of product


3. Availability of a safer substitute product


4. Ability of mfct'r to eliminate unsafe character of the product


5. User's ability to avoid danger


6. Anticipated awareness of user of inherent danger of product and their avoid ability


7. Feasibility of mfctr'r spreading the loss




-Factors also incude state-of-the-art, although complying with SOTA doesn't = absolute defense.

Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co.

-Did TC err by not instructing jury on a breach of warranty theory in addition to a negligent design theory?




-P injured when the forklift he was operating experienced a power surge, caused him to fall to ground, break hip.