Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Products Liability  (Read 651 times)

Trancer

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Conan the Republican!!!
    • View Profile
Products Liability
« on: December 10, 2005, 09:07:51 PM »
Product Liability actions arent always strict liability... in what instances can a product liability action be one in negligence rather than strict liability?
Its not the size of the army that counts, its the fury of the onslaught.
Seton Hall, August 05

T. Durden

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
    • View Profile
Re: Products Liability
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2005, 09:52:58 PM »
i think a more accurate statement is that products liability is not absolute liability

for one, there has to be a defect within the product (defined by either manufacturing defect, design defect, or warning defect). however - the manufacturer is not responsible for unforeseeable use of its product, and a voluntary assumption of risk by the consumer can be used as a defense as well... also the consumer's negligence is factored into the determination of fault - basically there is a comparative negligence scheme intertwined with the products (strict) liability ...

but we didnt' learn about anything about the manufacturer's negligence -i think it is still a strictly liability (though highly qualified) scheme

batoyreh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Products Liability
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2005, 12:40:13 PM »
Product Liability actions arent always strict liability... in what instances can a product liability action be one in negligence rather than strict liability?

as an aside, when you make a claim for products liability you'd make a claim for SL and in the alternative for N.

Assuming we're in a state that has SL for PL then most every PL action is a SL case.

however, proving SL can often be like proving N.  particularly with a design defect claim.  using the 'hand' approach with a cost/benefit analysis we ask "did the cost of keeping this design outweigh the benefits of keeping this design?"  this involves many factors of course, but if in the end it seems the design should have been altered then it is deemed a defective design.  if it can be shown that the design is the cause of the accident then the P has a claim that we call SL but looks almost identical to a N claim.

there are also other aspects of PL that, while called SL, look somewhat similar to N claims (warnings, consumer expectations test for design defects).

Highway

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Products Liability
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2005, 01:24:27 PM »
Manufacturing defects are strictly liable.

Design defects are grounded in negligence.

Inadequate instructions or warnings are also grounded in negligence.

See Products Restatement sec. 2.

Trancer

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Conan the Republican!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Products Liability
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2005, 01:51:16 PM »
3rd restatement im assuming?
Its not the size of the army that counts, its the fury of the onslaught.
Seton Hall, August 05

Highway

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Products Liability
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2005, 09:14:57 PM »
3rd restatement im assuming?

Yes. Also goes by the name of "Products Restatement." At least, according to my casebook.