defective but the plaintiff must be able to prove that the manufacturer

Defective but the plaintiff must be able to prove

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.

defective, but the plaintiff must be able to prove that the manufacturer breached a duty of care. Additionally, the plaintiff must have sustained damages to themselves or their property (depending upon the state) that were a direct result of the defect in the product that has not been modified or changed from the original product. 2. Compare and explain the primary differences between strict product liability
Background image
and negligence.In order to prove negligence, you must be able to prove that the manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler or retailer did not exercise a duty of care. Under strict liability, a duty of care is not relevant, and it is only relevant if a product was defective or lacked proper warnings of the hazard it presents and caused injury to a consumer, a user, and in some cases even a bystander. Another distinct difference between strict product liability and negligence is that under negligence privity (a relationship between the two parties) is required whereas under strict liability privity is not required. Under the Uniform Act, a consumer is required to give reasonable notice to the seller that they were injured. While a case under the theory of negligence falls under The Uniform Act, a case under the strict liability theory does not. This means that an individual could pursue a suit against a seller or those applicable under the law without having provided reasonable notice they were injured.
Background image

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture