Plaintiff misconduct defenses consumer carelessness o Statute of limitations 4

Plaintiff misconduct defenses consumer carelessness o

  • Test Prep
  • kellmargs2
  • 43
  • 100% (2) 2 out of 2 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 35 - 37 out of 43 pages.

Plaintiff misconduct defenses – consumer carelessness o Statute of limitations – 4 years o Notice requirements – buy has a duty to notify the seller of a breach within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should discover any breach, or be barred from remedy NEGLIGENCE · Defendant must have owed a duty to the plaintiff, and duty must have been breached · Seller’s duty to use reasonable care arises form the mere act of placing goods on the market · Often based on design or manufacture · Buyer and seller could BOTH be liable for failure to inspect · Duty to warn – arises when a product’s design subjects the user or hazard of risk of injury · Design standards o State of existing technology o Expectation of ordinary consumer o Danger of a product in relation to its social use o Compliance with govt safety standards · Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself · The UCC provides the only avenue for product liability recovery for mere economic loss STRICT LIABILITY – manufacturers and sellers are held liable irrespective of fault
Image of page 35
· Eliminating the need to prove negligence in tort action will make manufactures and sellers more mindful of accident prevention · Elements: o One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonable dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability if § The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product § It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold o The rule stated above applies although § The seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and § The user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller · A product is defective if it is unreasonably dangerous because of a flaw in the product or a weakness in its design or because adequate warning of risks and hazards related to the design has not been given · Economic loss doctrine à draws a strong line between tort liability and contract liability and has important ramifications for products liability law · Restatement (Third) of Torts à recognizes the three types of strict liability claims o Imposes liability whenever a product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised o Replaces strict liability in design cases with an explicit negligence standard, providing that a product… is defective in design when the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller, … and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe · Limitations à unreasonably dangerous has been eliminated in some circumstances as a requirement o Limited recovery to users and consumers o Product can’t undergo material change in condition after leaving defendant’s hands o Damages are only for property damages and personal injuries · Strict liability doctrine favors plaintiffs in that it possesses several advantages o
Image of page 36
Image of page 37

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 43 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Baker

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes