Strict and Products Liability Flashcards

A plaintiff is injured by a defective lawnmower. She cannot identify which of three manufacturers produced the specific unit because the serial number was destroyed in the accident. Under market share liability, the court will likely:

Answer: Apportion liability among defendants based on their market share

Market share liability, developed in DES cases, allows apportionment among defendants based on their respective market shares when the plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer.

A plaintiff sues a retailer for strict products liability after being injured by a defective blender. The retailer argues it merely sold the product and had no role in the design or manufacture. Under strict products liability, the retailer is:

Answer: Liable because retailers in the distribution chain are strictly liable

Under strict products liability, every seller in the commercial distribution chain — including retailers — can be held strictly liable regardless of fault.

A homeowner uses dynamite to remove a tree stump and injures a neighbor. The neighbor sues under strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity. The homeowner argues blasting is common in the rural area. This argument:

Answer: Is one factor courts consider in assessing whether the activity is abnormally dangerous

Whether an activity is inappropriate for the location is one of several factors courts weigh under the Restatement when assessing abnormal danger; local commonality may reduce the weight of this factor.

A plaintiff claims a car's roof collapsed during a rollover accident that the manufacturer did not design for. The manufacturer argues the car was safe for normal use. Which type of defect claim is most appropriate?

Answer: Design defect, because the entire product line lacks rollover protection

When an entire product line lacks a safety feature that would reduce foreseeable risks (like rollover protection), the claim is for design defect.

Under the consumer expectations test for design defect, liability is established when:

Answer: The product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect

The consumer expectations test holds a product defective in design when it fails to meet the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer.

A bystander is injured when a defective car tire blows out and the car strikes him. He was not the purchaser or user of the car. Can he sue the tire manufacturer under strict products liability?

Answer: Yes, because strict products liability extends to bystanders foreseeably injured by the product

Modern strict products liability has eliminated the privity requirement and extends protection to bystanders who are foreseeably injured by a defective product.

A plaintiff successfully sues a manufacturer under strict products liability. The jury finds the plaintiff 30% comparatively at fault. In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, the plaintiff's recovery is:

Answer: Reduced by 30%

Most jurisdictions apply comparative fault principles to strict products liability, reducing the plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of fault.