The Legal Environment of
Business
Chapter 7 : Torts
What is a Tort?
What is a tort?
A tort is any legally recognizable injury arising from the conduct (or
nonconduct, because in some cases failing to act may be a tort) of persons
or corporations.
侵权是任何合法地，由于个人或公司的行为产生的损伤(或nonconduct,因
为在某些情况下未能实现的侵权)
What is a Tort?
According to Black's Law Dictionary a tort is a "civil wrong, other than
breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usually in the
form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on persons who
stand in a particular relation to one another."
A far less formal definition of a tort is:
All the crazy stuff that you can possibly imagine happening to a person.
Different Types of Torts
•
•
There are various types of torts:
Intentional Torts
– Assault An assault is an intentional, unexcused act that creates in another person a reasonable
apprehension or fear of immediate harmful or offensive contact
– False imprisonment. This tort takes place when someone intentionally confines or restrains
another person’s movement or activities without justification.
– Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) When that physical touching is absent,
courts sometimes permit another tort to be claimed instead.
– Battery, is a completed assault, any unconsented touching, even if physical injuries aren’t
present.
•
Property Torts
– Trover - recovery of damages for the taking of personal property
– Replevin - recovery of property unlawfully taken
– Detinue - action by a person who believes they have a greater legal right to immediate
possession of property rather than the current posessor
– Conversion - deprives person of their property (destruction of property, willful interference,
etc.)
– Trespass
Different Types of Torts
• Dignitary Torts
– Alienation of affection and other "heart balm" torts
– Malicious prosecution
– Invasion of privacy
– Defamation
• Economic Torts
– Tortious interference
– Fraud
– Restraint of trade
Different Types of Torts
• Nuisance
• Negligence
– Duty of care
– Breach of that duty
– Proximate causation
– Damages
• Strict Liability
– Product liability
– Ultrahazardous activity (examples include transportation of
explosives, possession of wild animals, radioactive materials, etc.)
Differences Between Tort Law and Contract Law
1. Plaintiffs
In contract law only persons with whom you have a contract or with or you
are a third party beneficiary to, can sue you for breach of contract.
In tort law, anyone can sue you as long as they can show that you owed
them a legally recognized duty.
Differences Between Contract Law and Tort Law
2.
Damages:
For a breach of contract claim you can recover compensatory damages,
not punitive damages.
For a tort claim you can recover both compensatory and punitive
damages.
Compensatory damages – money damages to compensate for economic
losses stemming from injuries. (easy to calculate for breach of contract
claim, difficult to calculate for tort claim.)
Punitive damages – money damages to punish the defendant for gross
and wanton negligence to deter future wrongdoing.
Intersection Between Tort Law and Criminal Law
In some cases the same conduct can be a tort and a crime.
If I punch you in the face, you can bring a civil action against me for the
tort of battery. (civil burden of proof – preponderance of the evidence.)
You can also file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office where the
prosecutor could file a criminal case against me for the crime of battery.
(criminal burden of proof – proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)
Negligence Per Se Doctrine
Negligence per se doctrine - if someone is convicted of a crime, he or she
is also automatically liable in civil tort law.
Criminal defendants who wish to avoid a criminal trial are permitted to
plead “no contest” to the criminal charges, which permits the judge to
sentence them as if they were guilty but preserves the right of the
defendant to defend a civil tort suit.
Tort Terms
Tortfeasor –the person committing the tort.
Respondeat superior doctrine - when an employee is working for the
employer’s benefit and commits a tort, the employer is liable. The
employee was on a frolic and detour at the time he or she committed the
tort.
Vicarious Liabilty
• To understand frolic and detour, you must first understand the legal
concept called vicarious liability. Tort litigation is perhaps the most
frequent user of the vicarious liability theory; this theory allows someone
injured by an employee to sue and collect a settlement from that
person's employer.
• Frolic and detour is an exception to the vicarious liability rule.
• A frolic and detour is almost exactly what it sounds like; an employee who
ordinarily would be engaged in the activities dictated by the terms of his
employment briefly strays from those activities. If he or she strays far
enough for the behavior or activity to be completely unrelated, the law
labels the employee's actions during that time a "frolic and detour."
Three Types of Torts
• Three types of torts depending upon the tortfeasor’s intent.
• Intentional tort - If the tortfeasor acted with intent to cause the damage
or harm that results fro
• Negligence - If the tortfeasor didn’t act intentionally but nonetheless
failed to act in a way a reasonable person would have acted.
• Strict liability - if the tortfeasor is engaged in certain activities and
someone is injured or killed, the tortfeasor is held liable no matter how
careful or careless he or she may have been.
Intentional Torts
• In an intentional tort, the tortfeasor intends the consequences of his or
her act, or knew with substantial certainty that certain consequences
would result from the act.
Assault and Battery
• Assault - is an intentional, unexcused act that creates in another person a
reasonable apprehension or fear of immediate harmful or offensive
contact. Actual fear is not required for assault—mere apprehension is
enough.
• Battery - is a completed assault. It is any unconsented touching, even if
physical injuies are not present. The touching does not have to be direct, it
can be through an object.
Defenses to Assault and Battery
Consent – players on a sports team are presumed to have consented to be
battered.
Self-defense – reasonable and proportionate force to defend oneself from
harm or injury.
Defense of others – reasonable and proportionate force to defend
another person or persons from harm or injury.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
When a battery has not incurred but an individual’s emotions have been
battered, an injured party may file a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED).
Two elements:
extreme and outrageous conduct (measured objectively); and
emotional distress - some states require plaintiff must demonstrate
some physical manifestation of the psychological harm (such as
sleeplessness or depression) to win any recovery.
Companies must be careful when handling sensitive employment
situations to avoid potential IIED liability.
Invasion of Privacy Claims
• Invasion of Privacy - Invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal
life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose
privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the
person or entity that intruded.
• The four main types of invasion of privacy claims are:
–
–
–
–
Intrusion of Solitude
Misappropriation of Name or Likeness
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
False Light
Intrusion of Solitude
1. Intrusion of Solitude
• Intruding upon another's solitude or private affairs, physically or otherwise,
is subject to liability if this intrusion would be considered highly offensive
to a reasonable person. This type of invasion of privacy is commonly
associated with "peeping Toms," someone illegally intercepting private
phone calls, or snooping through someone's private records.
• Example: A man with binoculars regularly climbs a tree in his yard and
watches a woman across the street undress through her bathroom window.
Her injury is the emotional distress she suffers upon seeing the perpetrator
looking at her.
Misappropriation of Name or Likeness
2. Misppropriation of Name or Likeness
• Plaintiffs may make a claim for damages if an individual (or company) uses
their name or likeness for benefit without the other party's permission.
Usually this involves a business using a celebrity's name or likeness in an
advertisement. In fact, some states limit this type of invasion of privacy tort to
commercial uses.
• The recognition of this tort is similar to a property right; in other words, a
person's name and likeness are treated as that person's property. For
celebrities, this is often referred to as "right of publicity."
•
Example: In 2005, an advertising agency approached musician Tom Waits with
regard to an ad campaign for a new automobile. Waits, who has a distinctive
and easily recognizable voice, declined. So the advertisers hired someone who
sounds like him to do the soundtrack, prompting Waits to sue the automaker
for appropriating his likeness. - See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/tortsand-personal-injuries/invasion-of-privacy.html#sthash.pQa2zITo.dpuf
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts
• This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First
Amendment's protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or
slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may
be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of
public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if
made public.
• Example: In 1931, the maiden name of a former prostitute who was
acquitted of murder was revealed in a film about the case. Since the trial,
she had moved to another city, gotten married and adopted a new
lifestyle. Her new friends were unaware of her past, so the disclosure of
this true but embarrassing information was deemed an invasion of her
privacy. - See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personalinjuries/invasion-of-privacy.html#sthash.pQa2zITo.dpuf
False Light
4. False Light
• A false light claim is similar to a defamation claim in that it allows an individual
to sue for the public disclosure of information that is misleading (or puts that
person in a "false light"), but not technically false. The key difference is that
defamation claims only apply to the public broadcasting of false information;
and as with defamation, sometimes First Amendment protections prevail.
• Generally, a false light claim must contain the following elements: (1) a
publication by the defendant about the plaintiff; (2) it was done with reckless
disregard; (3) it places the plaintiff in a false light and (4) it would be highly
offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person.
• Example: In 1992, a 96-year-old woman sued an Arkansas newspaper for
printing her picture next to the headline, "Special Delivery: World's oldest
newspaper carrier, 101, quits because she's pregnant!" The woman, who was
not pregnant, was awarded damages of $1.5 million.
• - See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/invasionof-privacy.html#sthash.pQa2zITo.dpuf
False Imprisonment
• False imprisonment.
–
when someone intentionally confines or restrains another person’s movement or
activities without justification.
– The interest being protected here is your right to travel and move about freely without
impediment.
– This tort requires an actual and present confinement.
A business may raise the shopkeeper’s privilege in defense to a false imprisonment claim
brought by a shoplifter or thief.. Businesses are permitted to detain suspects until police
arrive at the establishment .The detention must be reasonable : store employees must not
use excessive force in detaining the suspect, and the grounds, manner, and time of the
detention must be reasonable or the store may be liable for false imprisonment.
Intentional Torts Committed Against Land
• Trespass to land occurs whenever someone enters onto, above, or below
the surface of land owned by someone else without the owner’s
permission. The trespass can be momentary or fleeting. Soot, smoke,
noise, odor, or even a flying arrow or bullet can all become the basis for
trespass.
• Defenses to trespass:
– invitee : someone invited by the owner
– license to trespass: meter reader or repairman
– necessary to trespass: to rescue someone in distress.
Intentional Torts Committed Against Land
• Nuisance - exists when a tortfeasor acts in a manner that interferes with
someone else’s use or quiet enjoyment of land. A public nuisance occurs
when a tortfeasor’s actions interfere with public health, safety, or welfare.
• Attractive nuisance –when there is an item or condition on a property
that would be attractive or dangerous to children, even if they are
trespassing, the homeowner must take care to both warn children about
the attractive nuisance and protect them from harm posed by the
attractive nuisance. (pools, abandoned cars, refrigerators left out for
collection, trampolines, piles of sand or lumber). Key question is whether
or not children can understand or appreciate the risk.
Intentional Torts Against Personal Property
• Trespass to personal property - the unlawful taking or harming of
another’s personal property without the owner’s permission.
• Conversion - when someone takes your property permanently; it is the
civil equivalent to the crime of theft.
Defamation Against People
• Defamation - is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful
to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result
of negligence or malice. Oral defamation is considered slander, while
written defamation is libel. To be liable for defamation, the words must be
published to a third party. There is no liability for defamatory words
written in a secret
• The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
– a publication to one other than the person defamed (to a third party);
– a false statement of fact;
– that is understood as
• a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
• b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
Defamation Against People
•
In addition to the usual elements, a public figure must show "actual
malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless
disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
• A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of
public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the
obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential
candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limitedpurpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion
about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or
her own view across.
Defamation Against Goods or Products
• Injurious falsehood (or trade disparagement) takes place when someone
publishes false information about another person’s product.
Business’ False Product claims
• Fraudulent misrepresentation - requires the tortfeasor to misrepresent
facts (not opinions) with knowledge that they are false or with reckless
disregard for the truth. An “innocent” misrepresentation, such as
someone who lies without knowing he or she is lying, is not enough—the
defendant must know he or she is lying.
• Puffery – promotional statements expressing subjective views is not fraud.
Tortious Interference with a Contract
• Tortious interference - prohibits the intentional interference with a valid
and enforceable contract. If the defendant knew of the contract and then
intentionally caused a party to break the contract, then the defendant may
be liable.
Negligence
• Negligence - all persons, as established by state tort law, have the duty to
act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their
dealings and interactions with others. Breach of that duty, which causes
injury, is negligence. Negligence is distinguished from intentional torts
because there is a lack of intent to cause harm.
Elements of a Negligence Claim
Four elements:
1. duty;
2. breach;
3. causation; and
4. damages.
Duty
• Duty - arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the
defendant and the plaintiff, and due to this relationship, the defendant is
obligated to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff. A judge, rather
than a jury determines whether a defendant owed a duty of care to a
plaintiff. Where a reasonable person would find that a duty exists under a
particular set of circumstances, the court will generally find that such a
duty exists.
• Another way to look at duty is to consider whether or not the plaintiff is a
foreseeable plaintiff. In other words, if the risk of harm is foreseeable,
then the duty exists.
• Malpractice – when professionals such as doctors, accountants, dentists,
architects, and lawyers who owe a special duty to act as a reasonable
person in their profession violate that duty. Professional negligence by
these professionals is known as malpractice.
Duty
• Example: While the defendant is loading bags of mulch onto a truck, he
strikes a child with one of the bags, the first question that must be
resolved did the defendant owed a duty to the child ?
Duty
• The court would need to decide whether the defendant and the child had
a relationship such that the defendant was required to exercise
reasonable care in handling the bags of mulch near the child. If the loading
dock were near a public place, such a public sidewalk, and the child was
merely passing by, then the court may be more likely to find that the
defendant owed a duty to the child. On the other hand, if the child were
trespassing on private property and the defendant did not know that the
child was present at the time of the accident, then the court would be less
likely to find that the defendant owed a duty.
Breach of Duty
• Breach of Duty - a defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise
reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. Unlike the question of whether a
duty exists, the issue of whether a defendant breached a duty of care is
decided by a jury as a question of fact.
Breach of Duty
In the mulch bag loading example, a jury would decide whether the
defendant exercised reasonable care in handling the bags of mulch near
the child.
Causation
In considering causation, courts look at two questions:
1. but-for causation. This form of causation is fairly easy to prove. But for the
defendant’s actions, would the plaintiff have been injured? If yes, then butfor causation is proven.
2. proximate cause - Proximate cause relates to the scope of a defendant's
responsibility in a negligence case. A defendant in a negligence case is only
responsible for those harms that the defendant could have foreseen through
his or her actions. If a defendant has caused damages that are outside of the
scope of the risks that the defendant could have foreseen, then the plaintiff
cannot prove that the defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the
plaintiff’s injuries.
In determining whether proximate cause exists, we once again use the
foreseeability test. If an injury is foreseeable, then proximate cause exists. If it
is unforeseeable, then it does not.
Causation
Show the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company video
But-For Causation
• The child injured by the defendant who tossed a bag of mulch onto a truck
could prove but-for causation by showing that but for the defendant's
negligent act of tossing the grain, the child would not have suffered harm.
Proximate Cause
• The child injured by the bag of mulch would prove proximate cause by
showing that the defendant could have foreseen the harm that would
have resulted from the bag striking the child. Conversely, if the harm is
something more remote to the defendant's act, then the plaintiff will be
less likely to prove this element. Assume that when the child is struck with
the bag of mulch, the child's bicycle on which he was riding is damaged.
Three days later, the child decides to walk his bike to a repair shop and is
struck by a car on the way to the shop. Although the harm to the child
and the damage to the bicycle may be within the scope of the harm that
the defendant risked by his actions, the defendant probably could not
have foreseen that the child would be injured three days later on his way
to the repair shop.
Causation
•
Some times in mass tort litigation it can be difficult to pinpoint a particular
source for a product, which then makes proving causation difficult.
•
Doctrine of joint and several liability - Joint and several liability” allows a
plaintiff to “sue for and recover the full amount of recoverable damages from
any [defendant].” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability §
10 (2000). In its pure form, the practical effect of this doctrine is that the
plaintiff can recover the entire amount of damages from any of the jointly and
severally liable tortfeasors, regardless of a particular defendant’s percentage
share of fault.
•
Joint and several liability is meant to address the inequity that flows from a
responsible actor being unable to pay. In such a case, someone – the plaintiff
or another defendant – will end up paying for the insolvent party’s share.
Two Types of Damages in Tort Law
1. Compensatory damages – compensation for actual injuries suffered by
the plaintiff. Compensatory damages can be awarded for medical injuries,
economic injuries (such as loss of a car, property, or income), and pain and
suffering.
2. Punitive damages - money awarded to the plaintiff in addition to
compensatory damages to deter the defendant’s future bad conduct.
Punitive damages are available in cases where the defendant acted with
willful and wanton negligence, a higher level of negligence than ordinary
negligence.
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
•
Plaintiff has not proven the elements - To successfully defend against a
negligence suit, the defendant may try to negate one of the elements of
the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant could introduce evidence
that he or she did not owe a duty to the plaintiff; exercised reasonable
care; did not cause the plaintiff's damages.
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
• In addition, to trying to prove that the plaintiff has not proven all the
elements, a defendant may rely on one of a few doctrines that may
eliminate or limit liability based on alleged negligence.
• Affirmative defense are raised by the defendant essentially admitting that
the four elements for negligence are present, but that the defendant is
nonetheless not liable for the tort. There are three types of affirmative
defenses to a negligence claim:
– assumption of the risk
– contributory or comparative negligence
– Good Samaritan statutes
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
• Assumption of the risk: If the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumes
the risk of participating in a dangerous activity, then the defendant is not
liable for injuries incurred. In order for this doctrine to apply, the plaintiff
must have actual, subjective knowledge of the risk involved in the activity.
The plaintiff must also voluntarily accept the risk involved in the activity.
The assumption of risk defense would not apply to any additional,
unknown dangers.
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
• Example: An example might involve an amusement park ride that flips
passengers completely upside-down. A passenger who saw the ride and
knew what would happen on the ride assumed the risks associated with
the ride. On the other hand, a plaintiff does not assume the risk of
something unexpected related to the ride, such as where a loose bolt
causes the ride to throw the plaintiff in a violent manner.
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
• Open and Obvious doctrine - is a defense used mostly in Premise liability
cases.
The general rule is that a premises possessor owes a duty to an invitee to
exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from any unreasonable risk
of harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land. The open and
obvious doctrine is a major exception to this general rule. According to the
doctrine an invitor is protected from liability if the danger is an open and
obvious one. The foundation for this rule is that the open and obvious
nature of the dangerous situation serves as a warning to the invitee and
the person is expected to recognize the potential danger and to protect
himself against it.
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
•
Contributory or comparative negligence :
– Contributory negligence is an absolute defense in situations where the
plaintiff contributed to his own injuries. Contributory negligence occurs
when a plaintiff's conduct falls below a certain standard necessary for the
plaintiff's protection, and this conduct cooperates with the defendant's
negligence in causing harm to the plaintiff. This means the plaintiff most
likely would have avoided injuries had he or she not also been negligent.
Although state laws differ, in a state that follows the
contributory negligence rule, a plaintiff’s own negligence, no matter how
minor, could bar the plaintiff from any recovery.
– Example: a factory worker suffers serious burns to his face after his
welding torch malfunctions. However, he failed to flip down his mask
before using the torch, which would have prevented the injury. Technically
speaking, the plaintiff's negligence for his safety (failure to use proper
safety equipment) is the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the
damages.
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
• Comparative negligence:
• Contributory negligence has led to harsh results in some cases, and the
majority of states have replaced the doctrine with an alternative called
comparative negligence . The doctrine of comparative negligence reduces
a plaintiff's recovery by the percentage in which the plaintiff is at fault for
his or her damages. A majority of states have modified this rule, barring a
plaintiff from recovering if the plaintiff is as much at fault (in some states)
or more at fault (in other states) than the defendant.
• Example: a drunk driver strikes and seriously injures a pedestrian who
failed to use a nearby crosswalk. Although it's unlikely the driver would
have acted any differently had the pedestrian used the crosswalk, the
driver's civil liability may be reduced due to the plaintiff's own negligence.
Defenses to a Negligence Claim
• Good Samaritan law may be a defense in a negligence suit. Good
Samaritan statutes are designed to remove any hesitation a bystander in
an accident may have to providing first aid or other assistance. They vary
widely by state, but most provide immunity from negligent acts that take
place while the defendant is rendering emergency medical assistance.
• Most states limit Good Samaritan laws to laypersons (i.e., police,
emergency medical service providers, and other first responders are still
liable if they act negligently) and to medical actions only.
Strict Liability
• In areas where strict liability applies, the defendant is liable no matter
how careful the defendant was in preventing harm.
• Three areas of strict liability:
– 1. carrying out ultrahazardous activities ;
– 2. serving of alcohol to minors or visibly intoxicated persons; and
– 3. the manufacture, distribution, and sale of unreasonably dangerous products.
Strict Liability
2. Ultrahazardous activity – an activity so inherently hazardous that
those who undertake the activity and cause injuries are held strictly
liable.
•
Example: Transporting dangerous chemicals or nuclear waste is
inherently dangerous. If the chemicals spill, it is very difficult, if not
impossible, to prevent injury to property or persons.
Strict Liability
2.
When restaurants, bars, and taverns serve alcohol to minors or
visibly intoxicated persons
This is considered an ultrahazardous activity because there is a high
risk of probability that these patrons, if they drive, will injure others.
Dram shop laws – many states have laws that impose strict liability
in these circumstances.
Strict Liability
3. The manufacture, distribution, or sale of unreasonably dangerous
products.
To demonstrate that a product is unreasonably dangerous, plaintiffs
have two theories available to them:
1. defective product; and
2. design defect.
Strict Liability
• Defective Product theory: the product was defective because of a flaw in
the manufacturing process.
• In a strict product liability case, the plaintiff must show that:
1. a product was sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition or
with an inadequate warning;
2. the seller expected and intended that the product would reach the
consumer without changes to the product, and
3. the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s property was injured by the defective
product.
• Strict liability only applies to commercial sales.
Strict Liability
• Design defect theory: the product is defective because it was designed
incorrectly or in a manner that causes the product to be unreasonably
dangerous.
• The primary inquiry in a design defect case is whether the product -because of the way it was designed -- creates an unreasonable risk of
danger to the consumer or user when put to normal use.
• To establish liability in a design defect case, the plaintiff must prove
– 1. the product, as designed, is unreasonably dangerous and therefore
"defective“; and
– 2. the demonstrated defect caused his injuries.
Strict Liability
• Many product liability cases arise from the defective design theory
because courts have held that the warning labels on products, as well as
accompanying literature, are all part of a product’s design.
– A product that might be dangerous if used in a particular way,
therefore, must have a warning label or other caution on it, so that
consumers are aware of the risk posed by that product.
– Manufacturers must warn against a wide variety of possible dangers
from using their products, as long as the injury is foreseeable.
– If consumer misuse is foreseeable, manufacturers must warn against
that misuse as well.
Defenses to Strict Liability Claims
•
Assumption of the risk – as in negligence the user must know of the risk of
harm and voluntarily assume that risk.
•
Product misuse - If the consumer misuses the product in a way that is
unforeseeable by the manufacturer, then strict liability does not apply.
Manufacturers are still liable for any misuse that is foreseeable, and they must
take steps to warn against that misuse.
•
Commonly known danger doctrine. If a manufacturer can convince a jury that
the plaintiff’s injury resulted from a commonly known danger, then the
defendant may escape liability.
•
Because product liability is strict liability, the plaintiff’s contributory or
comparative negligence is not a defense.