Torts 3.txt

• No strict liability unless–
• (1) ∆ has a domesticated animal with vicious propensities; and
• (2) ∆ knows in advance of vicious propensities

Trespassers: No strict liability can be imposed by a trespasser. However, a trespasser may have an intentional tort or negligence (possessor of land) claim for injuries inflicted by vicious watchdogs (think "spring-gun").

Wild Animals: Strictly liable for injuries inflicted upon licensees and invitees as long as injured person did nothing to bring about the injury.

Trespassers: No strict liability can be imposed by a trespasser. However, a trespasser may have an intentional tort or negligence (possessor of land) claim for injuries inflicted by vicious watchdogs (think "spring-gun")

Note: Injuries incurred while fleeing are forseeable.

• Strict Liability if:
• Activity creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
• The activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.

Note: Injuries incurred while fleeing are foreseeable.

• 1: ∆ is a commercial supplier of a product. Does not extend to service providers or casual sellers.
• 2: Product has a defect that makes it unreasonable dangerous;
• 3: Product has not been substantially altered since it\\ left ∆'s control.
• 4. π was making foreseeable use of the product at the time he was injured, and
• 5: Damages–Physical injury or property damages must be shown.

Note: That the defect existed when product left ∆'s control will be inferred if the product moved through normal channels of distribution.

Product departs from its intended design in a way that makes it more dangerous than the products made properly.

• (1) There exists a safer, practical and cost-effective way to build it; OR
• (2) Inadequate warnings or instructions–duty to warn if product has certain risks that cannot be reasonably eliminated, and a consumer would not normally be aware of those risks.

• Practical = Would not undermine product's purpose
• Cost-effective = Alternative design would not make the product significantly more expensive.

• In contributory negligence jurisdiction: assumption of risk.
• In pure comparative negligence jurisdiction: Damage reduction based on percentages.