1. Strict Liability
Chapter 21

2. Review Negligence DUTY BREACH CAUSATION DAMAGES
Every person owes a duty of reasonable care toward others.
BREACH
What would the “Reasonable Person” have done?
CAUSATION
“Cause In Fact”—harm wouldn’t have occurred without the wrongful act; and
“Proximate Cause”—harm was foreseeable.
DAMAGES
Plaintiff suffered actual harm.

3. Strict Liability
To prove strict liability, one must only prove causation and damages
And one must prove that the activity which caused the harm is the type of unreasonably dangerous activity to which strict liability applies.
Common sense and public policy require persons conducting dangerous acts to take responsibility for any harm caused, even if they weren’t negligent.

4. Unreasonably Dangerous Activities
When the activity involves a risk of harm that can’t be eliminated even with reasonable care.
May be socially useful, but because of the danger, those who conduct unreasonably dangerous acts are held to strict liability.
Therefore, those who engage in them must assume the risk of any foreseeable harm.

5. Animals
In most states, such as California, an owner is strictly liable only when he or she knew or should reasonably have known that the animal is dangerous or destructive.

6. Defective Products 1 Million product liability injuries a year
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Issues and enforces mandatory product safety standards
Manufacturers are frequently held strictly liable for harm caused by their products.
Incentive is for manufacturers is for them to create safe products before placing them on the market
Courts have been reluctant to apply strict liability to products whose benefits outweigh the dangers.

7. Defenses to Strict Liability
Best strategy is often to argue that the plaintiff should have to prove negligence, policy should not require the use of strict liability, or that the benefits of the product outweigh the harm created.
If tried as Strict Liability, the defendant can try to show that there is no causation or that there are no damages.
Manufacturers may have a defense if
The Consumer misuses the product
Ignores clear safety warnings
Manufactures often required by courts to anticipate some misuse and to make the products safe against any foreseeable misuses.