Chapter 6 Strict Liability and Product Liability

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 21: Strict Liability
Advertisements

Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. © 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 6 Strict Liability.
Problem of people being injured by “defective products.”
What You’ll Learn How to define negligence (p. 88)
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
{ Chapter 10 TORTS: Negligence and Strict Liability.
© 2006 Prentice Hall Ch THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS A Critical Thinking Approach Fourth Edition Nancy K. Kubasek Bartley A. Brennan M. Neil.
Tort Law Part 2 Negligence and Liability. Negligence Most common tort Accidental or Unintentional Tort Failure to show a degree of care that a “reasonable”
© 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 IV. Strict Liability IV. Strict Liability  A. Abnormally dangerous activities 
UT-Austin Edinburgh Summer Program 2002 Product Liability When goods cause injury, there is a question of product liability. There are three main issues.
Tort Law – Unintentional torts
Product Liability Negligence Failure to exercise due care in design, materials, production, assembling, inspecting, testing and placing warnings No privity.
Slides developed by Les Wiletzky Wiletzky and Associates Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany.
Chapter 21 Warranties and Product Liability
Chapter 1: Legal Ethics 1. © 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Ch The Legal Environment of Business A Critical Thinking.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 6 Strict Liability and Product Liability Chapter 6 Strict Liability and.
Tech 435 – Legal Aspects of Safety Dr. E. Hansen, CIE Department of Technology NIU-DeKalb, IL.
Welcome to Unit Eight Intro to Torts What Are We Studying This Unit? Strict (also called Absolute) Liability Strict (also called Absolute) Liability.
ICPHSO: U.S. and Canadian Product Liability and Safety Regulatory Risks Kenneth Ross Bowman and Brooke LLP October 27, 2009.
NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY Chapter 4. Which tort? 1.You enter a department store where they have just cleaned the floor. The floor is still wet,
Chapter 10 Strict Liability and Product Liability
Chapter 6.  A tort is a wrong  There are three categories of torts  Intentional torts  Unintentional torts (negligence)  Strict liability 6-2Copyright.
Durham Public Schools Chemical Safety Program On-line Science Safety Workshop Janet Scott, Director of Science 6-12.
Products Liability Tort Liability Negligence Strict Liability Restatement of Torts 402 A.
Chapter 10 Torts and Product Liability Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
Strict Liability Chapter 6.
Copyright © 2008 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning Chapter 25 Product Liability: Warranties and Torts Twomey Jennings Anderson’s.
7-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability Copyright © 2009 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. Jentz Miller.
Negligence and Strict Liability. Products Liability The liability of manufacturers, sellers, and others for the injuries caused by defective products.
Comprehensive Volume, 18 th Edition Chapter 27: Warranties and Other Product Liability Theories.
20-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Chapter 20 Negligence. The failure to exercise a reasonable amount of care in either doing or not doing something resulting in harm or injury.
Chapter 6 Product and Strict Liability
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
Contract Law for Paralegals: Traditional and E-Contracts © 2009 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All rights reserved Relationship of Tort.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 23.1 Chapter 23 Product Liability.
 Development of Strict Liability.  Defendant’s liability for strict liability is without regard to: Fault, Foreseeability, Standard of Care or Causation.
Chapter 6 Torts and Strict Liability. Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall.6-2 Three Kinds of Torts A tort is a wrong.
Chapter 09 Negligence and Strict Liability Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Strict Liability and Product Liability Chapter 7.
By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts
COPYRIGHT © 2006 West Legal Studies in Business, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, and West Legal Studies in Business are trademarks.
Prentice Hall © PowerPoint Slides to accompany The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce 4E, by Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 6 Product.
WARRANTIES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY. WARRANTIES under the UCC An assurance from seller that goods meet certain standards An assurance from seller that goods.
Personal Injury Laws Objective: Define negligence and strict liability Bellwork: What was conversion? How do you think the name came about?
Copyright © 2010 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. and the Legal Environment, 10 th edition by Richard.
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
The development of common-law strict liability Ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activities.
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
Section 4.2.
TORTS “The American Recipe”
Bell-work 1/27/17 Read one of the two quotes under World Government and give a brief meaning.
Negligence Mr. Lugo.
Chapter 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability
Strict Liability Chapter 21.
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
Chapter 13: Product Liability
Chapter 13: Strict Liability and Prduct liability
By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts
Chapter 7 Strict Liability and Product Liability
Chapter 6 Product and Strict Liability
Chapter 25 PRODUCT LIABILITY: WARRANTIES AND TORTS
Chapter 9 Strict Liability and Product Liability.
Section Outline Unintentional Torts Negligence Strict Liability
STRICT LIABILITY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
NEGLIGENCE Requirements:
Presentation transcript:

Chapter 6 Strict Liability and Product Liability

§1: Strict Liability Defendant’s liability for strict liability is without regard to: Fault. Foreseeability. Standard of Care. Causation. Liability is based on creation of extraordinary risk.

Abnormally Dangerous Activities Defendant is strictly liable for an “abnormally dangerous activity” if: Activity involves serious potential harm; Activity involves high degree of risk that cannot be made safe; and Activity is not commonly performed in the community or area.

Wild Animals Persons who keep wild animals are strictly liable for injuries caused by the beast. Persons who keep domestic animals are liable if the owner knew or should have known that animal was dangerous.

§2: Product Liability Product Liability is not a new tort. Liability can be based on: Negligence; Misrepresentation; or Strict Liability; Warranty Theory.

Product Liability (Negligence) Negligence-based product liability is based on a manufacturer’s breach of the reasonable standard of care and failing to make a product safe.

Product Liability (Negligence) [2] Manufacturer must exercise “due care” in: Designing products; Manufacturing and Assembling Products; Inspecting and Testing Products; and Placing adequate warning labels.

Product Liability (Negligence) [3] Manufacturers who violates state or federal law in the manufacture or labeling of a product, may be negligent per se. No privity of contract required between Plaintiff and Manufacturer. Liability extends to any person’s injuries caused by a negligently made (defective) product.

Product Liability (Misrepresentation) Occurs when fraud committed against consumer or user of product. Fraud must have been made knowingly or with reckless disregard for safety. Plaintiff does not have to show product was defective.

§3: Strict Product Liability Manufacturers liable without regard to fault based on public policy: Consumers must be protected from unsafe products; Manufacturers should be liable to any user of the product; Manufacturers, sellers and distributors can bear the costs of injuries.

Strict Product Liability [2] Requirements for strict liability: Product is unreasonably dangerous when sold Defendant sells the product; Plaintiff injured by use or consumption of product and defective condition is the proximate cause of injury. Greenman v.Yuba Power Products (1962).

Strict Product Liability [3] Plaintiff must show product was so “defective” it was “unreasonably dangerous”: Product was dangerous beyond ordinary consumer expectations; OR A less dangerous alternative was economically feasible but rejected.

Market Share Liability Theory of liability when multiple Defendants contributed to manufacture of defective product. Liability of each Defendant is proportionate to the share of the market held by each respective Defendant.

Liability of Suppliers Suppliers of Component Parts may be liable if: Component is defective at the time of sale/distribution; Supplier “substantially participates” in the design and integration of defective product.

Liability of Suppliers [2] Manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, sellers liable to an injured bystander who did not purchase, use or consumer the product. Injuries to bystanders from defective products are reasonably foreseeable.

§4: Strict Liability—Restatement (3rd) of Torts The terms “unreasonably dangerous” and “defective” are used interchangeably and subject to differing definitions by different courts. Restatement defines three different types of defects: manufacturing, design and warning defects.

Strict Liability: Manufacturing Defects Occurs when a product “departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.”

Strict Liability: Design Defects Occurs when the “foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative . . . and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.”

Strict Liability: Warning Defects A product may be defective because of inadequate warnings or instructions. Liability based on foreseeability that proper instructions/labels would have made the product safe to use.

Warning Defects [2] There is no duty to warn about obvious or commonly known risks. Seller must also warn about injury due to product misuse. Key is whether misuse was foreseeable.

§5: Defenses to Product Liability Assumption of Risk. Product Misuse (Plaintiff does not know the product is dangerous for a particular use). Contributory/Comparative Negligence. Commonly known dangers. Statutes of Limitation.

Case 6.1: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (Strict Product Liability) FACTS: A piece of wood flew out of the lathe attachment of a Shopsmith (a consumer power tool) while Greenman was using it, causing serious injuries. Greenman sued the retailer and the manufacturer for breach of warranties and negligence. The jury ruled in favor of Greenman, and the Defendants appealed.

Case 6.1: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (Strict Product Liability) HELD: AFFIRMED. FOR GREENMAN. Greenman proved that the design and construction of the Shopsmith were defective and that his injuries were caused by the defects. “A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.” Purpose of liability is for manufacturers to bear the costs.

Case 6.2: Embs v. Pepsi-Cola (Strict Product Liability) FACTS: Embs was buying groceries at Stamper’s Cash Market. A carton of 7-Up was sitting on the floor at the edge of the produce counter about one foot from where she was standing. Several of the 7-Up bottles exploded severely injuring Embs. Embs sued Pepsi but the court ruled against her and dismissed her case. Embs appealed.

Case 6.2: Embs v. Pepsi-Cola (Strict Product Liability) HELD: REVERSED. FOR EMBS. The appellate court extended the protection of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A “to bystanders whose injury from the defect is reasonably foreseeable.” The court based this extension on the policy that “the loss for injuries resulting from defective products should be placed on those members of the marketing chain best able to pay the loss, who can then distribute such risk among themselves by means of insurance and indemnity agreements.”

Case 6.3: Liriano v. Hobart Co. (Warning Defects) FACTS: Super Associated store bought a Hobart Corp. meat grinder that had no warning that it should be operated only with the safety guard. Liriano, a SA employee, removed the guard and was severely injured when his hand was caught in the grinder. (Liriano was seventeen years old, a recent immigrant, and on the job only a week. He had not been told how to operate the grinder.) He sued Hobart claiming that the lack of a warning about the safety guard was negligence. The jury returned a verdict for Liriano. Hobart appealed, arguing that the danger was so obvious no warning was needed.

Case 6.3: Liriano v. Hobart Co. (Warning Defects) HELD: AFFIRMED. FOR LIRIANO. A manufacturer can be liable for failing to warn about alterations, such as the removal of a safety guard, that would make its product unsafe. It doesn’t matter how obvious the danger is. “Even if most ordinary users may *  *  * know of the risk of using a guardless meat grinder, it does not follow that a sufficient number of them will *  *  *.”

Case 6.4: Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand (Comparative Negligence) FACTS: Smith was injured while attempting to start the diesel engine for a compressor manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand Company. Smith, a mechanic, was not wearing a hard hat when he was dispatched to start the engine. The door had to be propped open. Smith started the engine and the door fell from its open position and hit his head causing severe injury. Smith sued Ingersoll-Rand. Ingersoll-Rand defended that Smith’s failure to wear a hard hat and his propping the door open in an unsafe manner constituted contributory negligence.

Case 6.4: Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand (Comparative Negligence) HELD: FOR INGERSOLL. The court recognized that under a “system of comparative fault *  *  * , a plaintiff would still be able to recover if he was comparatively at fault for his injuries, but his recovery would be reduced in proportion to his percentage of fault.”