Strict Liability
Table of Contents
I.
Abnormal dangerous activitie A. General Principle.. 1. Basic idea.. B. Abnormal dangerous activities. Case: Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.... 1. RST s 520 -- Abnormally Dangerous Activities... 2. RTT: LPEH s 20 -- Abnormally Dangerous Activities... C. Prima facie case in strict liability... 1. RST 522 -- Contributing Actions of Third Persons, Animals and Forces of Nature 2 D. Defense.... .2 1. RST 523 -- Assumption of Risk... E. Scope of Strict Liability..... F. Treatment of plaintiff's negligence under the RST and RTT provisions on ADAs.. 1. Aviation.. 3 II.Product liability.. .3 Case: Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.... 3 A. Theories of recovery... Negligence(See negligence system note). 2. Res ipsa loquitur. 3. Strict liability... a. Loss minimization.... b. Loss shifting and spreading. c. Easing 's burden of proof. d. Clarity and openness... e. The role of warranty..... f. Consumer reliance on the manufacturer B. Arguments against strict products liability C. Now law on Strict products liability.. .5 D. Prima facie case for products liability. .5 1. The parties who are liable.. E. Types of product defects... 1. Manufacturing defects.. .6 2. Design defects.... 6 3. Failure to warn... .7 a. Defendant's duty to warn. .8 Case: MacDonald v. Ortho Pharm. Corp... b. Defendant breach that duty... .8 Case: Hood v. Ryobi America Corp..
111.
Defense to strict liability claims. 1. Assumption of risk.. 2. comparative responsibility(see negligence).
I. Abnormal dangerous activities
A. General Principle
RST s 519(1)-- One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.
1. Basic idea
Strict liability is appropriate for activities that impose great risks that are abnormal in relation to the risks that members of society commonly impose on one another. Examples: . Blasting . Storage and transportation of high explosives . Transportation of gasoline on highway . Oil-well drilling . Aerial spraying of crops . Nuclear power plants
B. Abnormal dangerous activities
Case: Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.
Defendant is a general contractor for aerial fireworks at public fireworks displays. They contracted to procure fireworks and provide operators , and to display it at Western Washington. They purchased $1000000 insurance for each bodily injury and property damage liability. During that display, 5-inch mortars was knocked into a horizontal position, ignited and discharged inside. The shell drew 500 feet parallel to the earth and exploded near the crowd of onlookers. Plaintiffs were injured, and Klein suffered facial burns and serious injury to his eyes.
1. RST S 520 -- Abnormally Dangerous Activities
(a) high degree of risk of harm (b) likelihood that the harm will be great; (c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; (d) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage; (e) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and (f) extent to which its value