Regardless of whether plaintiff has discovered hisher injuries SR sets absolute

Regardless of whether plaintiff has discovered hisher

This preview shows page 52 - 54 out of 96 pages.

Regardless of whether plaintiff has discovered his/her injuries, SR sets absolute outer limits on time w/I which action must be broughtStrict Liability - Means liability regardless of fault.Strict product liability is imposed if... - 1. Product is defective when Defendant sells it2. Defendant is normally engaged in the business of selling or distributing the product inquestion3. Product is unreasonably dangerous to user or consumer because of its defective condition4. Plaintiff suffers physical harm to self or property as a result of using or consuming theproduct5. Defective condition proximately causes Plaintiff's harm6. Product had not been substantially changedStrict Product Liability: The liability for someone's product - Manufacturer/seller/lessor of goods will be liable, regardless of intent or the exercise of reasonable care, for any personal injury or property damage to consumers/users/bystanders caused by the goods it manufactured/sells/leases if we have six different criteria metSuppose that a manufacturer fails to exercise 'due care' in its efforts to make a product safe, and as a result, someone is injured. In this situation, the manufacturer may be held liable for - negligenceThe manufacturer can be liable for its negligence in a number of different areas... - 1. Designing the product2. Selecting materials3. Using appropriate production processes(Ex. volkswagon seatbelt malfunction)4. Assembling and testing of the product5. Placing adequate warnings on the product
Background image
The modern concept of strict liability traces its origins, in part, to what famous English case? - Rylands v. Fletcher.Types of Unreasonably Dangerous Product claims: - 1. Manufacturing flaw"...when the product departs from its intended design, even though all possible care wasexercised ..."2. Design defectA product is defectively designed if"...could have reduced/avoided a foreseeable risk of harm by adopting a reasonable alternative design..." & Not adopting alternate design renders...not reasonably safe3. Inadequate warning A warning is defective if"foreseeable risks of harm...could have been reduced/avoided by...reasonable warningsor instructions" and Omitting warnings...renders product "not reasonably safe".Under the tort doctrine of strict liability, liability is - not based on the actor's negligence or intent to harm.Unreasonably Dangerous Products - Product is so defective (when sold, rented or manufactured) as to threaten a consumer's health and safety, either because the product is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer ORa less dangerous alternative was economically feasible, but the manufacturer failed to produce it.When is Strict Liability Imposed? - 1. Abnormally dangerous Activities: -Use of Dynamite-Involves serious potential harm to persons or property-Involves high degree of risk that cannot be completely guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care2. Activities involve dangerous animals-Dangerous domestic animal3. Common Carrier Bailments: One who transports goods of the public for a fee (alwaysliable)
Background image
Image of page 54

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 96 pages?

  • 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