Elements for Prima Facie Strict Liability Case The nature of the defendant’s activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe; The dangerous aspect of the activity is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and The plaintiff suffered damage to the person or property. Injuries caused by animals Domesticated animals No SL for injuries caused by domesticated animals Domesticated animals include cats, dogs and livestock NY: You can't be held liable (negligence or SL) for injuries caused by animals Exam Tip: EXCEPTION to both MBE and NY If you are aware of the animal's vicious propensity, then you are liable Compared to other animals of the same species E.g.: If your dog has previously bit someone, then you will be then held to a SL of the propensity First bite --> no liability since you had no notice All other bites --> strict liability Dog gets all the free bites, the owner gets the free bite Even if you know that your dog has a vicious propensity, this liability will not run to trespassers on your land Wild animals If you keep wild animals, you are strictly liable Zoos, circuses, etc. Exam Tip: Will distract with a bunch of safety precautions but irrelevant since SL What kind of animals are considered wild? Lions, tigers, bears, etc. Landowner Liability for Animals Wild animals or abnormally dangerous domesticated animals → Strict liability will be imposed on landowner where the person came into the land as a licensee or invitee. Public Duty EXCEPTION: where the landowner is under a public duty to keep the animals (e.g. a zookeeper), negligence must be shown. Trespassers → cannot recover for injuries inflicted by the landowner’s wild animals or abnormally dangerous domestic animals in the absence of negligence. EXCEPTION→ Landowner who protects property by having a vicious wild dog likely to cause serious bodily harm may be liable to trespassers. Abnormally dangerous activities R2d 2 part test: Creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even though when reasonable care is exercised AND activity cannot be of common usage to the community. If everyone in the community is doing the activity, then it would be dangerous but it wouldn’t be abnormally dangerous. Big three abnormally dangerous activities Explosives Don't even worry about the test, it is abnormally dangerous Anybody who is in engaged with working highly dangerous chemicals or biological material E.g., Lab with live Ebola culture Significant amount on radioactivity or nuclear activity. Does not include routine medical X-Rays The damage must result from the kind of danger to be anticipates from the Exam Tip: They will talk about a bunch of precautions they took but it doesn’t matter Workers' Comp Statutory scheme designed to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries Exclusive --> no right to litigate Employer is required to make the remedy available and essentially insuring the employee's safety Since you can't sue you will not get pain & suffering and punitive damages. The bar on litigation also covers co-workers Can't sue co-workers or anyone else that contributed to your injury If you get injured on job, and the boss was negligent in maintaining machine, you can still sue the manufacturer of the machine In construction, there tends to be several workers from different companies because there are subcontractors--> can sue main contractor Key distinction covers specific employees but not independent contractors E.g. If you live in suburb and hire guy to mow lawn, you are not their employee People not covered in Worker's Comp Teachers and non-manual/white collar workers for non-profit Part time household employees (babysitters, house cleaners) Clergy Key dispute → If you have a covered injury which normally occurs in the course of employment One. If an employee is injured due solely to his own intoxication→ no worker's comp benefits Two. Intentionally try to injure yourself or others→ no worker's comp Three. If you are injured during a voluntary off duty athletic activity→ no worker’s comp E.g. company softball team Things that are weirdly covered Illegal acts that occurred on the job… Horseplay on the job There are outer limits in which certain things won't be covered What do you get if you are covered? All medical expenses (unlimited) Lost wages but only two-thirds of average weekly pay Usually held via admin process and sometime go into judicial system Products Liability Expands to almost any product with a use of any kind Can include household products and ones used in business BUT just because an item is a product, it may not be a products liability Could also be a negligence claim. May say "John is suing company for negligence…" Could also be a UCC claim for IWFPP Four elements of a product liability One. The ∆ must be a merchant A merchant is someone who routinely deals with goods of this kind. Only a merchant be held SL. Four different ways to test for merchants: Casual sellers: Normally used goods by normal person, can be garage sale or ebay Not merchants, no SL Service providers Often make products available as part of the service but is incidental to the service E.g. Hair salon uses shampoo, not merchant of shampoo Rentors/Lessors Are considered merchants→ SL E.g.: Rental car company Routinely deal with goods of this kind Every party in the distribution chain is a merchant and therefore liable to a SL claim E.g. buy black & decker saw from home depot. Can sue both. Note: There is no privity claim necessary Two. Product has to have a defect. Exam Tip: On the MBE, this element is often stipulated meaning you don't have to think about it. 3 kinds of defects (only need one) Manufacturing defect Product has a manufacturing defect when a product differs from all products in the same assembly line, which would make it more dangerous than consumers would expect. Know that precautions are irrelevant Design Defect Product is defectively designed if there is a viable alternative design that meets 3 conditions: Safer than alternative Viable alternative must also be economical Must also be practical (can't make product unusable or difficult to manufacture.) Design defect is controversial because it then means that every product may be defective making them vulnerable to countless lawsuits Warnings will not escape liability You should just redesign the product Information defect Product has an information defect if it has residual risks that cannot be designed away AND consumers are unaware of those AND it lacks adequate warnings. Unavoidably Unsafe Products E.g.: Large chef knives can cut your hand but it is essential to item Warnings Not all of them are equal May need to be on item itself, was it in right language, may need symbols and not words, would consumer know about it? Three. The item has not been altered since leaving the ∆'s control. This is presumed if traveled via ordinary channels Aka bought it at a regular retailer and not on ebay Leaves it the defendant to rebut presumption Four. Π must be making a foreseeable use of the product at the time of the injury. Exam Tip: Tested often because some misuse is foreseeable E.g. P bought a new chair and he uses the chair to reach for something and chair breaks and he falls. ∆ will argue that chairs are supposed to be for seating only. This argument is irrelevant since it is a foreseeable use. Affirmative Defense to Strict Liability Comparative negligence but relabeled of comparative responsibility Reduces damages but it will not bar recovery Defense would apply to animals and abnormally dangerous activities Nuisance Describes the name of the tort and the injury that π sustains A bit circular Definition: interference with one's ability to use and enjoy real estate to an unreasonable degree Private Nuisance Substantial, unreasonable interference with another private individual’s use or enjoyment of property he actually possess or to which he has a right of immediate possession. Public Itnerference Act of unreasonably interfering with the health, safety, or property rights of the community Often involve inconsistent land use Two neighbors do different things with property and one makes the other miserable Actionable if it is caused negligently, intentionally, or as a result of an abnormally dangerous activity Misleading because intention in this context includes the intent to use the product, not necessarily the intent to make another miserable Plaintiff's hurdle is that the degree of interference is enough to warrant a remedy Court's balancing test between parties: Is the conduct seriously annoying? Is it intolerable? Is it definitely offensive?