busi law-ch 7 strict liability and product liability

1.the manufacturer can better bear the cost of injury because it can spread the cost throughout society by increasing the prices of its goods 2.the manufacturer is making a profit from its activities and therefore should bear the cost of injury as an operating expense

1.designing the product 2.selecting the materials 3.using the appropriate production process 4.assembling and testing the product 5.placing adequate warnings on the label to inform the user of dangers of which an ordinary person might not be aware 6.inspecting and testing any purchased components used in the product

1.consumers should be protected against unsafe products 2.manufacturers and distributors should not escape liability for faulty products simply b/c they are not in privity of contract with the ultimate user of those products 3.manufacturers and distributors can better bear the costs associated with injuries caused by their products b/c they can ultimately pass the costs on to all consumers in the form of higher prices

Greenman was injured when his shopsmith combination power tool threw off a piece of woold that struck him in the head. he sued the manufacturer, claiming that he had followed the product's instructions and the product must be defective. in a landmark decision, Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc. the california supreme court set out the reason for applying tort law rather than contract law including laws governing warranties, in cases involving consumers who were injured by defective products

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868 england)

1.fault 2.forseeability 3.standard of care OR 4.causation

strict liability based on abnormally dangerous activities is one application

1.negligence 2.misrepresentation 3.strict liability 4.warranty theory

claim based on a manufacturers breach of the reasonable standard of care

1.occurs when fraud committed against consumer or user of product 2.fraud must have been made knowingly or with reckless disregard for safety 3.plaintiff does not have to show product was defective

people liable for results of their acts, regardless of their intentions or exercise of reasonable care

1.consumers should be protected from unsafe products 2.manufacturers and distributors should be liable to any user of the product 3.manufacturers, sellers and distributors can bear the costs of injuries

1.product must be in defective condition when sold 2.defendant is in the business of selling the product 3.product must be unreasonably dangerous 4.plaintiff must be physically harmed 5.defective condition must be proximate cause of injury 6.goods are in substantially same condition

1.plaintiff does not need to show what manner the product became defective 2.but plaintiff must show at purchase product was defective and unreasonably dangerous 3.\"unreasonably dangerous product\"- the product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer

1.manufacturing defects 2.design defects 3.warning defects

occurs when a product \"departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product\"

1.product is manufactured correctly 2.test-plaintiff must show defendant's failure to use a reasonable alternative design rendered the product not reasonably safe 3.risk utility analysis 4.consumer expectation test

1.content of warnings- product is defective based on inadequate warnings or instructions 2.liability based on foreseeability that proper instructions/labels would have made the product safe to use 3.obvious risks 4.foreseeable misuses

1.liability when multiple defendant's contributed to manufacture of same defective product 2.each defendant is proportionately liable based on its market share

govt. regulations preempt claims for product liability

some courts do not allow A of R to be used in strict product liability claims

plaintiff does not know the product is dangerous for a particular use

defendants may be able to limit damages by apportioning fault

1.preemption 2.assumption of risk 3.product misuse 4.comparative negligence (fault) 5.commonly known dangers (matches, sharp knives) 6.knowledgeable user (electricians) 7.statutes of limitation and repose

which place outer time limits on product liability actions; may require that claims be brought within 12 years from the date of sale or manufacture of the defective product. if the plaintiff does not bring an action before the prescribed period expires, the seller cannot be held liable