TORTS II OUTLINE
STRICT LIABILITY- gets rid of proving intent (liability w/o fault)
SL deals with harboring animals or being involved in dangerous conditions.
Elements:
1. Activity subject to SL
2. Causation
3. Damages
4. Defenses
Trespassing Animals (barnyard animals)
CL exception: lawfully driving animals down the road, but if animal goes beyond land directly on the road then D can be held liable for SL.
Statutory Modifications:
Fencing In- speaks to D, fence in if you don’t want to be liable
Fencing Out- speaks to P, says you have to have a fence if you want to hold someone liable for SL
Wild Animals
-customs of community determine what is wild
Domestic Animals
Can be ground for SL if: D as to know or have reason to know animal has a dangerous propensity
Abnormally Dangerous Conditions
Actual damages must come from dangerous activity
SL DEFENSES
P’s negligence: look to see how responsible each party is
IAOR: merged into comparative negligence
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
3 theories of liability
1. Negligence
2. Warranty
3. SL
Negligence
MacPherson v. Buick Motor
-in old days liability would have ended with the dealer
-in this case Cardozo was breaking through the wall of privity
-Manufacturers duty in tort is to all persons that are foreseeably endangered if product is defective
Because of liability manufacturers use more quality control, so P’s may have t
-D was disclaiming everything, but repairs up to 4000 miles
-Ct. says disclaimer can not stop the tort claim
-ct. said the breach was of implied warranty of merchantability & this means product will be reasonably fit for ordinary use.
-How did P prove warranty was breached? Warranty runs with the product and an event like this doesn’t normally happen
Strict Liability
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products
-seller said breach of warranty was not brought w/I timely notice
-Ct. said you can’t use K defenses in a tort claim
-ct. said if no warranty or negligence who cares. This is SL for dangerous defects
