Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW

Similar documents
STRICT LIABILITY. (1) involves serious potential harm to persons or property,

California Bar Examination

Question 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?

Question Farmer Jones? Discuss. 3. Big Food? Discuss. -36-

Answer A to Question 10. To prevail under negligence, the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and

Chapter 12: Products Liability

ANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5

TORTS - REMEDIES Copyright July 2002 State Bar of California

California Bar Examination

HB By Representatives Williams (J), Greer and Henry. RFD: Commerce and Small Business. First Read: 16-APR-13. Page 0

Summary of Contents. PART I. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. An Introduction to the Restatement of Torts... 2

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016

Tincher and the Reformation of Products Liability Law in Pennsylvania

Torts, Professional Liability and Expert Evidence. Craig Wallace, P.Eng. CE 402

E D AUG 1 G 2 0 « CLERK OF THE COURT CSeriT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Case No.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2017

Case 3:10-cv B Document 1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Fall 1994 December 12, 1994 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1

CONTRACTS. A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties whereby they make the future more predictable.

PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW: BASIC THEORIES AND RECENT TRENDS by John W. Reis, COZEN O CONNOR, Charlotte, North Carolina

Business Law Tort Law Unit Textbook

3:18-cv MGL Date Filed 07/31/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :23 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015

Torts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES. Negligence

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :33 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016

5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/ :46 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2017

NEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful:

TADC PRODUCTS LIABILITY NEWSLETTER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM OPINION

CAUSE NO. V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION NOW COMES SHERRY REYNOLDS, BRANDON REYNOLDS, KATY

Legal Liability in Adventure Tourism

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Case 2:12-cv Document 1 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

{*731} McMANUS, Justice.

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW

FILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 02/15/ :54 PM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2017

LAW OFFICE OF MARK ROYSNER Mulholland Highway, Suite 382 Calabasas, CA

TYPES OF MONETARY DAMAGES

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. Law & Order Code TITLE 3 TORTS. [Last Amended 10/1/04. Current Through 2/3/09.]

Professional Liability for Engineers. Presented by: Bill Henn Attorney Henn Lesperance PLC

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 19, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Shanghai Jiao Tong University. LA200 Business Law

furnworld 0416 most ads fior smaller.indd 1

American Tort Reform Association 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC (202) Fax: (202)

SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2010

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF CONSTRUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION

CONDENSED OUTLINE FOR TORTS I

Case 2:12-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

MOTORIST DROWNS IN RETENTION POND ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY

1999 Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Products Liability

NEGATIVE TEN COURSE POINTS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/06/2010 INDEX NO /2010

SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 2010

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 04/10/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Deborah Fellner, by and through her counsel, Eichen Levinson & Crutchlow, LLP, hereby makes this claim against the Defendant as follows:

2. Denies knowledge and information suffrcient to form a belief with respect to

Supreme Court Evaluates Consumer Expectations Test in Strict Liability Claims

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION. ClassAction.

Keller v. Welles Dept. Store of Racine

Case 3:16-cv SDD-EWD Document 1 05/10/16 Page 1 of 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 40 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. v. Case No.:

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 41 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON DIVISION

Torts Tutorial Chapter 9 Product Liability

Answer A to Question 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 05/22/ :57 PM

OVERVIEW PRODUCT LIABILITY IN MALTA

FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/27/ :26 PM

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 39 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/ :24 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2015

MARYLAND DEFENSE COUNSEL POSITION PAPER ON COMPARATIVE FAULT LEGISLATION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :27 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 46 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

OCTOBER 2012 LAW REVIEW OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015

Stratus Technologies ftserver Products LIMITED RETURN-TO-FACTORY HARDWARE WARRANTY. Warranty Period (From date of Stratus Shipment)

Canadian Systems of Law Contract and Tort Law for Professionals There are two systems of law that operate in Canada: Common Law and Civil Law.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Case 9:16-cv KLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2016 Page 1 of 32

728 April 20, 2016 No. 166 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 03/08/ :09 PM INDEX NO NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/08/2017

Construction Warranties

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/ :00 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 47 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LAWS1100 Final Exam Notes

Case 2:14-cv NVW Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 4:18-cv JAS Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open

Case 0:17-cv WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

Transcription:

Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property damages that are caused by the goods. WARRANTY LAW Under the Uniform Commercial Code, certain warranties can arise in a contract for sale of goods. Consumers and others can recover from any seller for losses resulting from a breach of: express warranties implied warranties. 1

Product Liability: Negligence A manufacturer is liable for its failure to exercise due care to any person who sustained an injury proximately caused by the manufacturer s negligence with regard to any of the following: Misrepresentation A manufacturer may also be liable for any misrepresentations (tort of fraud) made to a consumer or user of its product if the misrepresentation causes the consumer or user to suffer injury. Strict Liability Strict Liability is imposed as a matter of public policy. A manufacturer, seller, or lessor of goods will be strictly liable, regardless of intent or the exercise of reasonable care, for any personal injury or property damage to consumers, users, and by-standers caused by the goods it manufacturers, sells, or leases 2

Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts 1. One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer or to his property, if a. the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and b. it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. Requirements of Strict Product Liability the product is defective when the manufacturer sells it, he manufacturer is normally engaged in the business of selling it; the product is unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer because of its defective condition (not required in all states); the plaintiff suffers physical harm to self or property as a result of using or consuming product, which is proximately caused by the defective condition of the product; and the product must not have been substantially changed. Product Defect and Strict Liability Claims Ordinarily, a plaintiff must show that a product was so defective as to be unreasonably dangerous or that either: The product was dangerous beyond the expectation of an ordinary consumer A less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it. 3

Market-Share Liability In cases in which plaintiffs cannot prove which of many distributors of a harmful product supplied the particular product that caused the plaintiffs injuries, some courts have applied market-share liability. Inadequate Warnings At what point does the manufacturer s responsibility for consumer safety end and the consumer s responsibility for his or her own safety begin? Courts generally try to balance the policy of protecting consumers with the policy that manufacturers cannot be the absolute insurers of the safety of all products on the market. Other Applications of Strict Liability Bystanders Manufacturers and other sellers are liable for harms suffered by injured bystanders due to defective products. Suppliers of Components Suppliers of component parts are strictly liable for defective parts that, when incorporated into a product, cause injuries to users. 4

Defenses to Product Liability Assumption of risk - a defense in an action based on strict liability if the following elements are shown: The Plaintiff voluntarily engaged in the risk while realizing the potential danger. The Plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk created by the defect. The plaintiff s decision to undertake the known risk was unreasonable. Defenses to Product Liability Product Misuse: Defendant must show that: plaintiff was using the product in some way for which it was not designed, misuse was not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. Comparative Negligence Liability may be distributed between plaintiff and defendant under the doctrine of comparative negligence. DEFENSES TO PRODUCT LIABILITY Commonly-Known Danger: Must show that injury resulted from a danger so commonly known by the general public (like the use of a knife) that there was no duty to warn. Knowledgeable User: If a particular danger is or should be commonly known by particular users of a product, no need to warn. 5

Statutes of Limitation and Repose A typical statute of limitations provides that an action must be brought within a specified period of time after the cause of action accrues. Other Defenses Lack of Required Elements A defendant can also defend against a products liability claim by showing that there is no basis for the plaintiff's claim (that the plaintiff has not met the requirements for an action in negligence or strict liability). Federal Preemption Compliance with federal safety standards may preclude liability under state product liability laws on the ground of preemption. 6