Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Products Liability: w/o fault or privity (Causation (Superceding (V…
Products Liability:
w/o fault or privity
Injury
economic loss rule
: damages to product itself not actionable
physical harm to P
Owner or bystander in class 4cbly at risk bcse of defect in product
Harm to tangible property owned by P
D is commercial seller of such products
Selling=placing product in SoC
retailers/dealers
IRRELEVANT: knew or shld have known, tested it, relied on mfr
manufacturers
leasors
distributers
all three on the chain can indemnify themselves against one another
If D provides primarily services, will not be seller for purposes of PL
Component parts
if seller or dist. of component significantly participates in integration of part into design of product, may be liable for any defects.
D sold a product
prescription drugs and vaccines
NOT products for purposes of PL
live animals
textual material (as opposed to book itself)
human body parts
real property
services
tangible goods
Defective
when sold
Design Defect:
flawed product line
flaw in design of
entire line
of products
risk-utility test
risks posed and availability of rsbly alternative design make product not rsbly safe
availability of safer design
if no safer design product not safe, but dist, rsble
possibility of mfring product so it is safer but functional and rsbly priced
likelihood that product will cause injury
user knew or shld know danger of product but does not take precatutions
not exactly same as comparative fault-DIDNT take precautions vs. DID act carelessly
utility to individ. user
mfr's ability to spread cost of safety related design changes
judged decides
utility to public as a whole
D must prove product's utility outweighs its risks
use of experts on costs/utility, tech issues.
D friendly.
consumer expectations test
product is more dangerous than ordinary consumer would expect
Doesn't always work
consumer lacks familiarity--no expectations
consumer would expect product to be dangerous, but risk still unrsble
P friendly. more leeway for judges
use in cases where jurors don't have to defer to experts
is product rsbly safe for intended use?
punitive dmgs: deterrent for willful and wanton conduct
Failure to Warn: information flaw
-product needs a warning
No warning
risks reduced/avoided by including warning info
omission of warning renders product not rsbly safe
Adequacy
giving warning to retail store, even if not in box
placement and prominence
nature of risk and how well communicated
other info that downplays or confuses about danger?
what seller knows or should know about reactions to warnings
more like a type of negligence then SL
but if info available to warn and doesn't still falls under SL
Acting like a prudent mfr absolves of neg
actual or constructive knowledge of risk necessary
"state of the art" evidence
based on scientific and medical knowledge at the time product marketed and sold, mfr couldn't know dangers (i.e. asbestos claims)
learned intermediary doctrine
duty to warn doctor of drugs' sideeffects, not customer directly
if product normally marketed and sold directly to customers
P must prove doc would NOT prescribe medicine w/ better warnings. If Doc would prescribe anyway, no claim even if inadequate warnings
rebuttable presumption: some states
allows assumption that warning will be heeded
D has to prove would NOT have heeded it
rebuttal takes burden off P to also
prove
warning would have been heeded
P has burden to prove not adequate warning
Over promotion theory
Manufacturing Defect: flawed unit
diverges from mfr's own spcifications
mfr's specs criteria for determining defect
strict liability: no negligence necessary
must emerge while in mfr's cntrl to be charged to mfr
Fact of accident evidence of defect
Causation
Proximate
Superceding
V tricks A into driving car V knows has defective brakes. Mfr could argue V's actions supersede his own.
Actual
Failure to Warn
If P would have used product the same
even with a warning
, FtW not cause of injury
Breach of warranty and Misrepresentation: addresses injury under K law
P's may bring one or all defect claims. Good lawyer knows which is most plausible
Defenses
Assumption of Risk
abnormal misuse: not 4cble by seller