What is the prima facie case for Strict Products Liability?
What is the prima facie case for Strict Products Liability?
1-Strict duty owed by a Commercial Supplier to make product absolutely safe for any foreseeable P (no privity req)
2-Product was Defective when it left D’s control (aka Breach) (Manuf, Design, Warning, Learned intermediary)
3-Product was used in Intended Forseeable way (if unforeseeable, no liability)
4-Product was NOT Substantially Altered before reached consumer
5-Actual & Proximate Causation
6-Damages
No Defenses
Strict Products Liability
2-Product was Defective when it left D’s control (aka Breach)
Define Manufacturing Defect and Test?
Strict Products Liability
2-Product was Defective when it left D’s control (aka Breach)
Define Manufacturing Defect and Test?
A manufacturing defect emerged in an unintended dangerous way. Use Consumer Expectation test which says
“Product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect accounting for reasonable misuse.”
Strict Products Liability
Define a Design Defect and it’s test?
Strict Products Liability
Define a Design Defect and it’s test?
- The actual design resulted in product not safe for its intended use.
- Feasible alt/Risk utility test: Danger of design outweighs cost of feasible alt design (e.g. utility)
- Or Consumer Expectation test: (previous card)
Strict Products Liability
When does a Warning Defect exist?
Strict Products Liability
When does a Warning Defect exist?
A warning defect exists when there is an indadequate warning of 4NOROH
1) Forseeable
2) Non-Obvious Risk Of Harm
Strict Products Liability–Warning Defect
- How is warning satisfied if the product in unavoidably unsafe?
Strict Products Liability–Warning Defect
- How is warning satisfied if the product in unavoidably unsafe? If a product is unavoidably unsafe, the warning may be satisfied if there are 1) instructions for usage, and 2) sufficient warning of foreseeable dangers.
Strict Products Liability–Warning Defect
What is the Learned Intermediary Rule for Presecription Drugs?
Strict Products Liability–Warning Defect
What is the Learned Intermediary Rule for Presecription Drugs?
- If prescription drug is administered by medical professional, then manufacturer’s duty to warn is satisfied once medical professional is informed of the risks b/c there is a presumption the doctor will inform patient.
Strict Products Liability
What is Actual and Proximate Causation in Strict Products Liability?
Strict Products Liability
What is Actual and Proximate Causation in Strict Products Liability?
Actual—defect existed when product left Δ’s control (Π need not prove fault).
Proximate—type of injury was foreseeable at the time product was placed in the stream of commerce
What Damages are recoverable for Strict Products Liability?
What Damages are recoverable for Strict Products Liability?
Physical injury or property damages are recoverable.
Purely economic loss NOT recoverable
Defenses to Strict Products Liability?
- Defenses to Strict Products Liability
- Comparative Negligence
- Misuse or Alteration in an Unintended & Foreseeable way.
- Assumption of Risk
- No Ordinary Contributory Negligence Defense against Plaintiffs Misuse or Failure to Discover unless Ps action rises to Assumption of Risk.
- Note: Disclaimers Ineffective for Strict Products and Negl Products liability.
What is the Prima Facie Case for Negligent Products Liability?
- Negligent Product Liability* (analysis similar to regular negligence DBCD)
- Duty: All foreseeable Πs. Standard of care of reasonably prudent commercial seller who would…
- Breach: Reasonableness of Δ’s conduct whose failure resulted in supplying a defective product. Res ipsa?
- Actual cause.
- Proximate cause: Learned intermediary rule also applies
- Also: Negligently failing to inspect with evidence that would lead a reasonable person to do so
- Damages: Physical injury or property damages. Purely economic loss NOT recoverable
- DEFENSES: Same as in a general negligence action
What is the Express Warranty Theory of Products Liability?
What is the Express Warranty Theory of Products Liability?
Δ makes a representation that affirms a fact OR makes a promise to the buyer about the product that becomes the basis of the bargain.
Breach-No need to show breach, just show product did not live up to warranty.
Causation,
Damages,
DEFENSES are treated as they are under implied warranties.
Warranty Theory of Products Liability
What is the Implied Warranty of Merchantability?
Warranty Theory of Products Liability
What is the Implied Warranty of Merchantability?
Merchantability (breached by merchant dealing in kind of goods sold) refers to whether the goods are of average acceptable quality and fit for the ordinary intended purpose
Warranty Theory of Products Liability
What is Fitness for a particular purpose theory?
Fitness for a particular purpose (breached by any seller of the goods) refers to whether the seller has reason to know good are purchased for particular and the buyer relies on the seller’s expertise
Warranty Theory of Products Liability
What are the rest of the prima facie elements for Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Fitness for a Particular Purpose?
Warranty Theory of Products Liability
What are the rest of the prima facie elements for Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Fitness for a Particular Purpose?
- Breach: If product fails to meet either of above standards, warranty is breached. No need to show fault.
- Causation: Actual + proximate cause as in general negligence
- Damages: Personal, property damages. Purely economic loss is recoverable
- DEFENSES: assumption of risk (using while knowing breach), contributory negligence if Π discovered defect, failure to give notice of breach (under UCC),
- Disclaimer of Warranty—are valid but cannot limit damages for personal injury
What are the elements for Misrepresentation Theory of Products Liability?
What are the elements for Misrepresentation Theory of Products Liability?
- isrepresentation Theory of Product Liability—aka Fraud based on SL, Intentional, Negligence
- Strict Misrep (just show that representation proved false regardless of SOM), Intentional Misrep (knowingly or recklessly), Negligent Misrep (RP would have known false)
- Of Material Fact
- Intent to induce reliance
- Justifiable Reliance
- Actual Caused Reliance
- Damage (if pxc get punitives)
