issues the Restatement third of Torts focusing on strict liability Explicitly

Issues the restatement third of torts focusing on

  • University of Texas
  • LEB 323
  • Notes
  • kellmargs2
  • 9
  • 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 9 pages.

issues the Restatement (third) of Torts focusing on strict liability Explicitly recognizes the three types of strict liability claims Limitations and Defenses Limitations Requirement that a defective product be “unreasonably dangerous” precludes recovery in many instances Damages resulting from the failure of a product to perform its ordinary purpose would not be covered under 402A
Image of page 7
402A limits recovery to users and consumers (including family members, guests, and employees of the purchasers) Recovery not always allowed to injured bystanders or others who are brought into contact with defective product The plaintiff may find it difficult to prove that a product left the hands of the seller in a defective condition Product undergo no material change in condition after leaving defendant’s hands Where the technology involved in production is complex, witnesses who can testify to defective manufacture may not be available Damage limitations exist Plaintiffs can usually only recover for property damages and personal injuries but not for basis-of-the-bargain damages Recovery of economic losses is usually disallowed as inconsistent with the UCC’s scheme for warranty recovery Statutory limitations on recoveries Privity Defense Most states follow the 402A(2)(b) position abolishing the privity requirement In some states an intermediary is protected from section 402A liability by requirements that the manufacturer be included in the plaintiff’s suit whenever possible or that the manufacturer be sued instead Sophisticated Purchaser Defense Plaintiff Misconduct Defenses FEDERAL CONSUMER LEGISLATION Consumer Product Safety Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act LEGISLATIVE LIMITATIONS ON THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY REVOLUTION PELMAN V. MCDONALD’S CORP. Issue: does McDonlads need to clearly warn consumers of the health hazards of its food? McDonald’s sells fast food that is high in unhealthy substances and thereby contributes to a burgeoning obesity problem problem among Americans Deceptive advertising and negligence Ruling: Judge dismissed the complaint but granted plaintiffs permission to file a new complaint Plaintiff consumers filed a class action lawsuit against McDonalds Trial judge held that plaintiffs failed to produce any advertisements that could be viewed as deceptive and turned to product liability claims based in negligence Analysis/Conclusion: complaint did not clearly draw the link between their obesity and McDonald’s fast food alone Argument used meant that a successful lawsuit would mean that literally anyone else in the food business (even home cooking) could potentially face liability Complaint did not adequately specify proximate cause How many times a week plaintiffs ate mcdonalds and the nature of the rest of their diet were not adequately indicated
Image of page 8
Image of page 9

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 9 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Baker
  • Contract Law, Implied warranty, Product liability

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture