Strict Liability

By: Devan Cormier and Scott Trantow

Wrong covered by Strict Liability

Dangerous Activities Animals Defective Products

Next

Defenses of Strict Liability

Misuse of product: Ignoring clear safety regulations , like taking too many

Tylenol, takes the responsibility out of the hands of the company and gives it to the individual. Prove Negligence: To argue that the case is a negligence case, negligence

cases will always be harder to prove because you have to prove breach of duty.

No Causation/No Damages: pg.259 uses the example of

someone having a heart attack while driving a car with faulty brakes. Although there were damages in the situation the heart attack was not caused by the faulty brakes leaving the car manufacturer unaccountable.

Elements of Strict Liability

Causation Damages

Next

Defective Materials

As a matter of public policy, manufacturers and sellers are frequently held strictly liable for harm caused by their products.

Problem 20.5 : The Exploding Gas tank Drug Approval Is Not a Shield From Lawsuits, Justices Rule

Back

The Exploding Gas Tank pg. 257 A drunk driver crashes into the side of Gabriel’s 1985 United Motors pickup truck, and Gabriel is killed.

His Parents sue the manufacturer of the pickup truck. They contend that although Gabriel would have been injured, he would have survived the crash if the pickup truck’s fuel tank not caught fire and exploded. They also contend they the manufacturer was already aware of customer complaints about the fuel tank, that is located outside the truck’s steel frame.

The company responds that the design of the truck was not defective and that Gabriel died from the collision

caused by the drunk driver. A) Why did Gabriel’s parents sue the manufacturer?

B)What would help Gabriel’s parents prove their case?

C)What arguments could united motors make in court?

D) Should the company be held responsible even though the drunk driver hit Gabriel? Explain.

E)If the placement of the fuel tank is faulty, what should United Motors do to protect other drivers?

F) How would you decide this case? Give your reasons?

Back

Animals

The law is traditionally held owners for any harm caused by their untamed animals. The situation differs, however for household pets. In most states an owner of a pet is strictly liable only if he or she knew or should have known that the pet was dangerous or destructive.

Back

Dangerous Activities

Activities are considered unreasonably dangerous when they involve a risk or harm that cannot be eliminated even with reasonable care

Troy Mine sued for millions over death in 2007

Back

Troy Mine sued for millions over death in 2007

Revett Minerals sued for the death of one of their workers in 2007. The worker died because of a loose rock (that the operator had knowledge of) fell onto his truck. The man was killed instantly. The lawsuit is seeking $18 million between compensatory and punitive damages.

More on this article at http://www.thewesternnews.com/articles/2009/02/12/news/doc49944311e64f0972509743.txt

Back