Business Law Notes July 26th Strict Liability Used to be narrow explosives wild animals but expanded in 1960 s Second restatement sets up a test to look at the liabilities to see if its strict liability Also since negligence is hard to prove made strict liability for dangerous defective products to make it easy for plaintiffs Later defenses were limited Page 235 Hanford case Indemnification People were injured while building bombs at Hanford price Anderson act o court looks at test if this building is dangerous activity to deem it possibly strict liability for abnormally dangerous activites Chapter 20 The tort of strict liability for dangerous defective products started to blur into other torts So gov changed the strict liability cases to be able to use all defenses Third restatement only kept strict liability for manufacturing Tort Negligent product design p514 most courts say middlemen have duty to inspect goods only when they have knowledge of a defect No duty to warn if risk is open and obvious Negligent design Strict Liability p517 o LOOK AT REQUIREMENTS 2nd if you smoke cigarettes you should expect to have a higher chance of getting lung cancer heart disease also foot amputation impotence Reasonable consumer should know that o 518 unavoidably unsafe product Make it as safe as possible warn a lot o Simo case most of the time the better design is already out there then you rush it up and you didn t test it enough when you rushed to match up to competitors Assigned bc think about the plaintiff he was trying to prove future damages but how do you measure that In respect to prospects he has to prove with expert testimony with reasonable certainty that he could ve been the next beckham o Liriano case only thing not dismissed was failure to warn defect Liriano is suing Hobart who made the guard but not his employer even though he is the one who took it off Liriano s problem w his argument that this machine is defective That it s a known danger general exception to negligence and strict liability cases Court steep hill shows two types of warnings general warning or suggestion of different way to approach the problem steep hill with detour sign suggests that there s another way and that a warning that the grinder is dangerous isn t enough a warning that gives you an alternative should happen under the circumstances that there s a better way that tells you more and if there s foreseeable amount of people foreigners that would benefit and if its not expensive Must be a universal image engraved in the metal Defenses 527 Daniels Case o Misuse of a product Normally a complete defense but foreseeable misuse is normally not Are you aware that people were suing your product in a certain manner if you were can t say its unforeseeable o Tried to commit suicide by locking herself in her trunk she sues for everything and it went through discovery She loses because it wasn t a foreseeable usage of a trunk Misrepresentation 524 o Tobacco companies saying cigarettes don t cause cancer and that its just causation Making unhealthy food look healthy McDonalds only published nutritional info for regular size burgers not supersize and then they changed due to the tobacco cases potential liability Warranties 506 Felley vs singleton o Plaintiff bought a car that had said was in good mechanical condition There were problems with the breaks Plaintiff sues for breach of express warranty not implied bc the defendants were not merchants or experts Litigate over statements made during the sale bc causal sellers don t normally give warranties Implied warranties o Not sellers statements Pg 509 fungable good is interchangeable don t get a specific good you get a certain quantity o Hong case Outside of reasonable consumer expectations Under old law Marriott would ve won bc it s a natural part of the chicken modern version you wouldn t expect to find the aorta in the wing Implied warranty of fitness 512 now in contract law not torts o Moss case ordinary purpose of the casket is to preserve the diseased for burial narrow
View Full Document
Unlocking...