Strict and Products Liability Flashcards

A plaintiff sues a hotel under strict liability after being bitten by a rattlesnake kept in the hotel's petting zoo exhibit. The hotel argues the snake had a handler and was secured. The plaintiff will most likely:

Answer: Win because wild animals trigger strict liability regardless of care taken

Owners of wild animals are strictly liable for injuries those animals cause regardless of the precautions taken, because wild animals retain their dangerous nature.

A defendant stored large quantities of flammable chemicals next to a residential neighborhood. An explosion injured several residents. Under strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which factor most supports liability?

Answer: The risk cannot be eliminated even with reasonable care and the location is inappropriate

The inability to eliminate the risk with reasonable care and the inappropriateness of the location are among the strongest factors supporting strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.

A plaintiff sues under strict products liability. The defendant argues the plaintiff's injuries were caused by a subsequent modification to the product made by a third party after sale. This defense is most likely:

Answer: Effective if the modification was unforeseeable and materially altered the product

An unforeseeable material alteration by a third party after sale can break the chain of causation and relieve the manufacturer of strict liability.

Under strict products liability, the plaintiff must prove all of the following EXCEPT:

Answer: The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in making the product

Strict products liability does not require proof that the defendant was negligent or failed to exercise reasonable care — the focus is on the product's condition, not the manufacturer's conduct.

A plaintiff purchases a used chainsaw from a neighbor at a garage sale. The saw has a defective chain brake that injures her. She sues the original manufacturer. The manufacturer's best defense under strict products liability is:

Answer: The plaintiff assumed the risk by purchasing a used power tool

While manufacturers can be liable for defective products sold through used channels in some jurisdictions, assumption of risk — knowingly using a visibly worn or potentially unsafe used power tool — is the strongest available defense here.

A plaintiff brings a strict products liability claim for an injury caused by a blood transfusion containing a virus undetectable by current medical technology. The blood bank argues the blood was as safe as current science permitted. Courts in most jurisdictions will:

Answer: Exempt blood and human tissue products from strict products liability by statute or common law

Most jurisdictions have enacted blood shield laws or adopted common law rules exempting blood and human tissue from strict products liability, classifying their provision as a service, not a sale.

A defendant operates a nuclear power plant that releases radiation injuring nearby residents even though all safety regulations were followed. Residents sue under strict liability. The most applicable theory is:

Answer: Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity

Nuclear power operations are a classic example of an abnormally dangerous activity that triggers strict liability regardless of the care exercised or regulatory compliance.