Strict Liability for Retailer Vandermark v Ford Motor Co p 561 Key is that \u03a0

Strict liability for retailer vandermark v ford motor

This preview shows page 31 - 34 out of 41 pages.

Strict Liability for Retailer ( Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. p. 561) –Key is that Π gets to recover from a solvent --Retailer and Manufacturer can work out between 31
Image of page 31
themselves contractually who will ultimately be held liable. --Didn’t want Ford to be able to create a loophole --Exception when you follow government specified K (e.g. for a helicopter) --Exception for second-hand sellers --NO exception for commercial lessors Product Liability and Causation: Still must prove cause-in-fact and Proximate Cause 1. Must prove harm over and above what would’ve been caused (if she had been wearing a seatbelt, for example) a. “Injuries are seperable” 2. Stahlecker v. Ford : Defective Tire broke down in neighborhood where woman was raped—but Ford was NOT the proximate cause. Three Factors: 1. Manufacturing defect “when the product departs from its intended design” 2. Defective Design “when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative…” 3. Inadequate Instruction: MANUFACTURING DEFECTS --All Π needs to prove is malfunction—“This Coke Bottle exploded and a million didn’t.” -- Burden on Π to show a malfunction --True Strict Liability. --Price v. General Motors: Burden on Π to show that it wasn’t poor maintenance but instead a malfunction DESIGN DEFECT Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. Facts: Π was hurt when using a lift loader in an incline. Principle: 1. Liability not limited to situations where product is used in its intended manner, but instead “in the intended or a reasonably foreseeable manner.” 1.Two Pronged Test: A. “ Π must demonstrate that the product railed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner AND B. If in hindsight the jury determines that the product’s designed “embodies ‘excessive preventable danger’ —Here has the burden (in CA—minority) to prove that product should not be judged defective. Not a negligence standard because its objective, instead of subjective (?) Soule v. General Motors Corporation Facts: Woman not wearing seat-belt crashes into car that swerve in front of her and the toeboard goes in and crushes her ankles. She alleges that she could reasonably expect the car to hold up better. Principle: 1. In situations where the even is beyond “common experience” or a vehicle too complex/consumer’s don’t know, then: Risk-Utility Analysis --??? Dreisonstok v. Volkswagenwerk: Van crash—“crashiability” could have been improved 32
Image of page 32
at greater cost, but that’s not definitely what the consumers wanted here. -- Risk-Utility Balancing in Design: “a Cadillac may be expected to include more in the way of both conveniences and the ‘crashiability worthiness’ than the economy car.” Camacho v. Honda Motor Co.
Image of page 33
Image of page 34

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 41 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture