THE THEORY OF STRICT LIABILITY I
Strict liability is an imposition of liability on a defendant regardless of whether he or she is at fault. At first, such a proposition may seem nonsensical. How can liability be imputed to someone who was not directly responsible for causing harm? All the lawyer needs to prove is that the plaintiff suffered harm/injury and that the other party is responsible for it, regardless of whether there is intent to harm. The courts and the legislature made a policy determination to place an emphasis on ensuring that the victim is made whole, with the rationale that the business who produces the defective products could more afford to bear the burden than the individual who was harmed. Furthermore, the defendant is in a better position to prevent future injuries from happening and, the defendant has more resources to remedy the defective condition. The total cost of an injury is more likely to be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, while the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed amongst the public as a cost of doing business.
It is in the public’s interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are harmful to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the marketplace and are shown to cause harm, it is in the public’s interest to place the responsibility for injury onto the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacturing of the product, is still nevertheless responsible. The theory of strict liability should cause the manufacturer to take every possible precaution in the manufacturing process to ensure the safety of its products for the public good, despite the fact that this law provides plaintiffs’ with a lower standard to getting a recovery. Regardless of good faith or precautionary measures by the defendant designed to avoid injury, liability can still assessed to the defendant.
One of the classic cases which led to the adoption of the theory of strict liability, is Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno (1944). The driver of the local Coca Cola bottler delivered cases of Coke to a restaurant in Fresno. When Gladys Escola, a waitress at the restaurant, picked up one of the bottles, it exploded in her hand, thus seriously injuring her arm. Although it was unclear what caused the bottle to explode, Ms. Escola could not point to a specific negligent act by the bottling company. Justice Traynor famously concluded that “the manufacturer's negligence should no longer be singled out as the basis of a plaintiff's right to recover…it should now be recognized that a manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection, proves to have a defect that causes injury to human beings.”
The emergence of modern strict products liability law as it is known today, was born in the early 1960s. In 1965, the American Law Institute, a select group of distinguished lawyers, judges and law professors created what has become its single most influential restatement provision, Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Section 402A provided that a product manufacturer or other product seller should be held strictly liable, without a requirement that the plaintiff prove either negligence on the part of the manufacturer or privity (a direct contractual relationship) between the manufacturer and the injured party, if the product was “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user” and caused injury to the “ultimate consumer or user” The adoption of strict product liability by the ALI and the courts has been called the most radical and spectacular development in American tort law during the twentieth century.
Other examples of strict liability offenses include injuries inflicted as a result of inherently dangerous activities, such as use of blasting in densely populated areas and keeping exotic animals. If you are injured by the blasting, no matter how careful the company was, they are liable to you for the injuries. Similarly, if the animal escapes and injures someone, no matter how strong the cages were, the zoo keeper is liable for damages. Today, many products pass the so-called “stream of commerce” before they reach the ultimate consumer. They are passed from the manufacturer, to the wholesaler, to the retailer to the consumer. Those engaged in the stream of commerce with respect to products should reasonably foresee that some people will misuse the product and should design the product so that injury does not occur. Disclaimers and waivers of liability for products are often invalidated by courts as against public policy and typically warranties are limited so that manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for personal injuries caused by the use of the product.
To Be Continued.
![BlogSearch.com](<A HREF="http://www.blog-search.com"> <IMG SRC="http://www.blog-search.com/images/smallbutton.gif" WIDTH=80 HEIGHT=15 BORDER=0 ALT="Blog Search: The Source for Blogs"></A>...){kind=link}