Torts-Strict Liability

Same as negligence, except replace duty with strict duty.

• Protective Efforts.
• --Legally irrelevant.
• --Examiners will pack facts with protective measures.

Domesticated Animals

--Generally no SL.

• --Exception:
• SL for injuries by animals with vicious propensities (usually past bite; can also be general bad demeanor), where D is aware of those propensities.

SL never applies to trespassers to land.

Wild Animals

SL, no exceptions.

Abnormally dangerous=

1. Activity must create foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised.

• 2. Activity must not be a matter of common usage in community where D conducts it.
• (crop dusting in farmland vs. suburbs)

• Watch the signal!
• --Products can trigger liability under a range of theories.
• --Signal may allude to specific theories (“P sues store for negligence.”). Only answer SL if asked (or on essays).

4 elements:

• 1. D must be a merchant.
• Merchant=routinely deals in goods of this type. Issues:
• --Casual Sellers. Not merchants; not SL (ebay sellers).
• --Service Providers. Primary business is offering a service; not merchants of goods/tangible products that are collateral to the service (collapsed chair in doc’s waiting room (but premises liability)).
• --Commercial Lessors. =merchants: even though they don’t part with title (rental cars).
• --Merchant Includes Every Merchant in Dist Chain. No requirement of privity with P (but P must still be a foreseeable victim for PC purposes).

2. There must be evidence that the product is defective.

Manufacturing defect.

Ok design, but actual product differs from design.

Design defect.

• There exists a safer, practical, and cost-effective alternative way to build the product. P must posit the alternative and show why it satisfies.
• --Practical=would not make more difficult to use or undermine effectiveness (bladeless knife).
• --Cost effective=a little more expensive is ok; not significantly.

Information defect.

Subset of design defect (because a warning (or better warning) is an alternative design). Not all warnings are equal.

--Must eliminate physical risks where possible. Cannot warn away. This is policy consideration: get safest feasible physical design; warn of remaining risks.

• 3. Product has not been altered since it left D’s hands.
• --Manufacturers are not insurers for their products. If a product is tampered with, there is no SL.
• --Proof difficulties=Presumption that if product has moved in ordinary channels of distribution, it has not been altered. D must prove otherwise.
• --Does not apply to sale of used goods; not ordinary channels.

• 4. P must be making a foreseeable use of product when injured.
• --Foreseeable uses; not intended uses/misuse (standing on chair; speeding in car).

(petting neighbor’s tiger); (using sparking Cuisinart).