Torts: Strict Liability & Products Liability

What is the general rule for a possessor's liability regarding wild animals?

A possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for physical harm caused by the dangerous propensities characteristic of the animal, even if the possessor exercised utmost care.

What landmark English case established the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities?

Rylands v. Fletcher established that a person who brings something onto their land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for all natural consequences of its escape.

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, what factors determine if an activity is 'abnormally dangerous'?

Factors include: high degree of risk of harm, likelihood that harm will be great, inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care, extent to which activity is not a matter of common usage, inappropriateness of the activity to the place, and its value to the community.

What are the three primary legal theories under which a plaintiff can bring a products liability claim?

The three primary theories are negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty.

What are the core elements of a strict products liability claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A?

The plaintiff must prove the defendant is a commercial seller, the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, the defect existed when it left the defendant's control, and the defect proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.

How is a 'manufacturing defect' defined in products liability law?

A manufacturing defect occurs when a product departs from its intended design, making it more dangerous than consumers expect, even if all possible care was exercised in its preparation.

What is the 'consumer expectation test' used for determining a design defect?

The consumer expectation test asks whether the product is more dangerous than would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community.

What is the 'risk-utility test' used for determining a design defect?

The risk-utility test determines a product is defective if the risks of the design outweigh its utility, often requiring the plaintiff to prove the existence of a reasonable alternative design (RAD) that would have reduced the foreseeable risks.

How does the Restatement (Third) of Torts alter the standard for proving a design defect compared to the Restatement (Second)?

The Restatement (Third) largely abandons the consumer expectation test as an independent standard for design defects, instead requiring the plaintiff to prove a reasonable alternative design (RAD) under a risk-utility analysis.

When is a product considered defective due to inadequate instructions or warnings?

A product is defective for failure to warn when foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings, and the omission renders the product not reasonably safe.