LawGuy321 wrote:Can anyone explain when we use Strict Liability for products liability, and when we use negligence? The questions don't seem to specify, and we're supposed to know which they're suing under. I've obviously missed something.
I DO know that whenever there's been a "change in condition" of the product, the manufacturer can't be held strictly liable. But that cannot be everything...
Whenever there's something wrong with the product you want to be thinking about strict liability - if it is a screw up on the assemblyline, built in a stupid way or doesn't adequately warn, you may be able to argue for SL if the product has been unaltered and was used in a foreseeable way.
For example, the Barbri 50 q practice set had something with a guy mounting his TV to the ceiling that then smashed the face of his 1 night stand when it fell on her. You normally wouldn't think this is strict liability because what idiot mounts a TV to the ceiling? However, one choice said "SL if the company had reason to know people mount TV's to the ceiling." If this was the case then the company had specific notice their clientele are dumb dumbs, and should have had a warning.
I think generally you want to argue both. "You're strictly liable because of a b c and even if you're not, you're negligent because of yada". There are exceptions to this and I'm only getting 29/50 on practice sets so am no expert, but whenever a person is hurt because of a product you should be asking whether SL may exist subject of course to the many exceptions. I don't mention wild animals or mines because it's pretty obvious if you walk through town square in your own world rocking out to your i-pod, step on a mine and explode that the idiot who put the mine there should lose.
Also, got 29/50 - not a very good score. Just went into high gear a week ago and have only been able to review lecture notes from 2/7 big topics. Reasonable to improve to 35/50 while still learning the state law stuff from scratch?