Chapter 6
Strict Liability and
Product Liability
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
1
§1: Strict Liability
Theory of strict liability started with Rylands v.
Fletcher (1868 England).
Defendant’s liability for strict liability is without
regard to: Fault, Foreseeability, Standard of Care
or Causation.
Liability is based on abnormally dangerous
activities.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
2
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.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
3
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.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
4
§2: Product Liability
Product Liability is not a new tort.
Liability can be based on:




Negligence;
Misrepresentation; or
Strict Liability;
Warranty Theory.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
5
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.
Case 6.1: Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
6
Product Liability
(Negligence)
Manufacturer must exercise “due care” in:




Designing products;
Manufacturing and Assembling Products;
Inspecting and Testing Products; and
Placing adequate warning labels.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
7
Product Liability
(Negligence)
Manufacturers who violate 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.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
8
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.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
9
§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.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
10
Strict Product Liability
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.
Case 6.2: Greenman v.Yuba Power Products
(1962).
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
11
Requirements for
Strict Product Liability
Plaintiff must show product was so “defective” it
was “unreasonably dangerous”:





Product must be in defective condition when sold.
Defendant is in the business of selling the product.
Product must be unreasonably dangerous.
Plaintiff must be physically harmed
Defective condition must be proximate cause of
injury.
 Goods are in substantially same condition.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
12
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.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
13
Product Defects
Three types of product defects:
 Manufacturing defects.
 Design defects.
 Warning Defects
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
14
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.”
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
15
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.”
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
16
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.
Case 6.3: Liriano v. Hobart Co. (1999).
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
17
Warning Defects
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.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
18
§4: Defenses to
Product Liability
Assumption of Risk.
Product Misuse (Plaintiff does not know the
product is dangerous for a particular use).
Contributory/Comparative Negligence.
 Case 6.4: Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co (2000).
Commonly known dangers.
Statutes of Limitation.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
19
Law on the Web
American Law Institute.
Horvitz and Levy.
Tobacco Product Liability.
Legal Research Exercises on the Web.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business
A Division of Thomson Learning
20