One-on-one Midterm Review Meetings

What products liability claims might Reuben the bear try to assert against the manufacturer of his pants?

• Manufacturing defect
• Design defect
• Failure to warn

We all know that Reuben should lose his case,
but on what legal grounds?

• Manufacturing defect
• Design defect
• Failure to warn

Warnings and Instructions

Hood v. Ryobi American Corp.

“Removing Bladeguards from an Electric Saw, What Could Go Wrong?”

Couple nuances

“Heeding Presumption”

Warnings can’t overcome design defects

How can you defend against a strict liability or products liability claim?

Argue that plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case

[.column]

Strict Liability

• Strict liability applies
• Causation
• Harm

[.column] Products Liability

• Defect
• Causation
• Harm

Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

“Refrigerator Fire”

Affirmative Defenses

Comparative Negligence Assumption of Risk

NOTE: Contributory negligence is NOT a defense to strict liability or products liability, only comparative negligence.

Jones v. Ryobi, Ltd.

“The Modified Printing Press”

Anderson v. Nissei ASB Machine Co.

“The Bottle-Making Machine that Amputated an Arm”

General Rule: Manufacturer can only be held liable for defects that existed when the product was sold.

Missouri: When a third party’s modification makes a safe product unsafe, the manufacturer is relieved of liability even if the modification is foreseeable.

Arizona (and CA): Only an unforeseeable modification of a product bars recovery from the manufacturer.

Intentional Torts

Structure for this Part of the Course

Intentional Torts: — Battery — Assault — False imprisonment — Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Defenses: — Consent — Self-defense — Defense of property — Necessity

Garratt v. Dailey

“The Five-Year-Old Who Pulled the Chair Out from Under Her”

Abridged Definition from Restatement (Third) of Torts A person acts with the intent to produce a consequence if: (a) the person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence; or (b) the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result.

—

Alcorn v. Mitchell

“The Angry Spitter”

—

Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc.

“The Camera Toucher”

Battery

Abridged Definition from Restatement (Second) of Torts

An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

Assault

Abridged Definition from Restatement (Second) of Torts An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.

Wishnatsky v. Huey

“The Offended Interrupter”

With intentional torts, always consider

1. The legal interest that each intentional tort addresses
2. The requirements of the defendant
3. The requirements of the plaintiff
4. Any objective requirements, including analysis that the judge or jury must conduct

The legal interest that each intentional tort addresses

Battery Freedom from harmful or offensive contact

Assault Freedom from apprehension of harmful or offensive contact

False Imprisonment Freedom from confinement

IIED Freedom from severe emotional distress