Scribd
Upload
156 views

Cheat Sheet Tort

This document summarizes various tort law doctrines including: 1. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities based on the level of risk and inability to eliminate risk through reasonable care. 2. Vicarious liability where an employer or principal can be liable for torts committed by employees or agents within the scope of employment. 3. Products liability for manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn regarding dangerous products. Manufacturers can be strictly liable for product defects even if they exercised all possible care.

Uploaded by

P LK
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
156 views

Cheat Sheet Tort

This document summarizes various tort law doctrines including: 1. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities based on the level of risk and inability to eliminate risk through reasonable care. 2. Vicarious liability where an employer or principal can be liable for torts committed by employees or agents within the scope of employment. 3. Products liability for manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn regarding dangerous products. Manufacturers can be strictly liable for product defects even if they exercised all possible care.

Uploaded by

P LK
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

S/L: Defendant engaged in legal conduct, acting without fault, but is liable because he/she caused harm for

policy reasons.
T Harm:1. S/L for barnyard animals likely to do harm when they trespass
2. No S/L for household pets ( but owner must use reasonable care)
3. No S/L for livestock on highway that stray on adjacent property
N-T Harm1. Domestic Animals: No S/L unless owner has scienter
2. Wild Animals: S/L for harm caused by the dangerous propensity of the wild animal 3. Whether an animal
is wild is determined by the custom of the community and whether the animal is of service to mankind
4. Limitation on S/L : Owner is only s/L if the harm is the result of the dangerous propensity of the animal
The first R.S. §520 focuses on whether the activity is per see ultra hazardous
- 1) involves risk of serious harm which can't be eliminated even with utmost care
- 2) not a matter of common usage
R.S.2d factors: abnormally dangerous if 1) high degree of risk 2) risk is of serious harm 3) cannot be
eliminated by due care 4) not a matter of common usage
5) Inappropriate to place carried on 6) risk outweighs the utility
Rylands v. Fletcher: D is S/L when he causes damage by a thing or activity which is dangerous and
inappropriate to its location, in light of the surrounding locale.
Majority rule: D is not S/L when foreseeable consequence occurs thru unforeseeable intervening cause
Minority and RS contrary: act of God, unforeseeable intervening cause = still strictly liable for foreseeable
results

V/L A secondary defendant can be held liable for the actions of another based on their special relationship.
2) What is the tortious conduct? Negligent , intentional tort or S/L.
3) employee’s or IC conduct : time, place purpose of act , method of payment{ IC:. Unless Particularly
dangerous activities. Non-delegable duties (Harm caused by negligence of carefully selected IC, not shift
able] 4) Is it in the scope ( control test) Conduct is within the scope of employment if it is subject to a right
of control by the party to be held vicariously liable . Minority rule even in the absence of a right of control,
enterprise is vicariously liable if employee’s conduct would have benefited the enterprise

P/L Manufacturing: when products manufactured are not within the manufacturer's own standard
Design: the product manufactured is within the manufacturer's standard but, the product injures a person due
to its unsafe design
Warning or instruction: the Product is manufactured to the manufacture’s own specification BUT the P is
complaining that the manufacturer failed to give adequate instruction or warning about the dangers of the
product.
(2nd 402 A merchants) Unreasonably dangerously defect 2) Which existed when it left D’s hands 3) Which
proximately caused P’s injuries
Consumer expectation Whether product is more dangerous than would be contemplated by the ordinary
consumer with ordinary common knowledge about its dangers
Imputed knowledge 1. Would seller have been unreasonable in selling the product assuming the seller had
known of its harmful or dangerous condition.
Risk utility test. Usefulness and desirability . Likelihood and severity of injury. Availability of alternatives
4.Practicability/feasibility cost/ benefit 5.User’s ability to avoid danger 6. User’s expectation 7.Feasibality of
manufacturer spreading the risk of loss
Defense : Assumption of the risk - a bar to recovery in most jurisdictions. State of the art ( at the time the
manufacturer manufactured the product the defect was UNKNOWABLE)
Restatement 3rd : Manufacturing is S/L even if all possible care was used. Design- P must show Risk was
foreseeable , Reasonable alternative design exists. Warning or instruction Risk must be foreseeable

You might also like