I. ABSOLUTE (STRICT) LIABILITY
A. Elements:
a. Is the activity abnormally dangerous? If yes- did it cause harm? The D pays, UNLESS
i. P is contributory negligent, OR
ii. Act of God
B. Case Law
a. Fletcher v. Rylands- (escaping water) GR: If D brings on his property abnormally dangerous activity, if it escapes, you must pay.
b. Big Lake Oil Co.- (natural v. unnatural(artificial) conditions). Rylands theory is outweighed by the social policy of economic growth
i. Terms:
1. Abnormally dangerous = Ultra-hazardous
2. Natural conditions = no liability for harm
3. Unnatural conditions = what caused liability of harm
C. Restatement (Second) of Tort § 520 [Factors]
a. Existence of high degree of risk of some harm
b. Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great
c. Inability to eliminate the risk (riskier acts belong in deserted plcs)
d. That the activity not be of common usage
e. Inappropriateness of activity (location)
f. Extent to which the value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
D. Cases using R2T§520-(does not relate to products!)
a. Spano- Result is absolute liability; Result-oriented judgment. Court had roadblock-Booth
b. Booth: Direct & Indirect
i. If blasting caused debris to enter = directly injures (dangerous)
ii. Booth held if its indirect = not abnormally dangerous
iii. Court was trying to limit liability to specific point
c. Richman- (deceased child killed by handgun) Case reversed because:
i. The inappropriateness of activity- must be related to land or other immovables
ii. The activity itself must cause the injury and the ∆ must have been engaged in the injury-producing activity
iii. Criminal who shot the child with the handgun is the superceding intervening cause and supercedes the liability)
d. Remember: You have to prove that the conduct is abnormally dangerous to win. Go through factors and try to pile them up on your side. Some jurisdictions/courts still go with Ryland distinction (natural v. artificial); Next you must prove it occurred on land, and that the injury was caused by the activity that D was engaged in (injury-producing activity)
II. PRODUCTS LIABILITY
A. Introduction:
a. Foundation for 402A- Defective product unreasonably dangerous when it was put into the stream of commerce.
b. §402A reshapes product liability law
B. Contract & Tort in Strict Products Liability (The Problem of Privity)
a. As P’s lawyer, you will have (3) Causes of Action
i. Negligence (privity problem w/negligence & proving fault)
ii. Warranty- Implied Warranty Against Manufacturer (Henningsen)
iii. Strict Liability in Tort (SLT) or 402A Liability (Defects)
C. Strict Products Liability in Tort
1. Refining the Doctrine: R2T§ 402A
a. Phillips Test: Would manufacturer have sold product had they known about the defect? AKA: Imputed Knowledge Test: test in imputing the knowledge (one that would not be in the stream of commerce had they known the danger). This test is purposely broad.
2. Key Question in PL: Is the D a seller? Is it a product? Is it defective?
b. Defect Split in 3 Ways
1) Mismanufacture (p. 541)
a. Test is limited to something going wrong in the manufacturing process. It readily identifies from M’s intended result.
b. P HAS TO SHOW
i. D made or sold product (req’d proof)
ii. Product caused injury (causation) *(only 1 & 2 for Absolute Liability)
and
c. Defect is traceable to the ∆
E. Majority v. Minority (jurisdictions)
1. 1982- NJ (Minority-MT-Sternhagen)
1) apply Phillips test
2) Mnftr-; unreasonable danger; strictly liable;
2. 1984- NJ (Majority-MA) (less aggressive ) State-of-the Art defense allowed, you can argue that they didn’t know about but the D has to prove it was impossible to know (expert who says they know- P or 1 document that says they knew about). Can’t allege state-of-art if you know of a danger
o Cmt J- adopted
o D may raise SOA
F. Differences b/t R2T & R3T (pages 560-1)
III. DEFENSES
A. Comparative & Contributory Negligence & AOR –ABSOLUTE
a. Marshall case-Prove ∆ own the animal; prove that it was dangerous
i. In contributory negligence, and you contrib’d to own injury, you get 0. (old rule)
b. Contrib. negligence is no defense to absolute liability (Marshall rule)
c. AOR- You voluntary assume a known risk; In Marshall, Court concludes no AOR here b/c not going to use comparative fault analysis, the doctrine of AOR is inapplicable
B. Comparative & Contributory Negligence & AOR- STRICT PRODUCTS
a. Culpepper case- Culpepper was at fault (breached a duty to herself) contrib.
i. Prove D manufactured it, sold the product; defective product b/c of its reasonably defected condition; injury to P or P’s property
ii. Primary defense to P liability: substantially altered;
1. Culpepper alleges product liability.
2. Defense from gun manufacturer- the way she handled the gun
Manufacturer made the hammerblock to prevent the accidental discharge when dropped. The mft can foresee that the gun could be dropped. Not a
