Product Liability Case Insights

Summary

In product liability cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate that foreseeable risks could have been mitigated with proper warnings. Defenses like comparative negligence may be used if the plaintiffs actions contributed to the harm. Strict liability applies to inherently dangerous activities, regardless of precautions taken. Statutes of repose limit the time for filing lawsuits. In California, livestock owners are liable for damages if they fail to contain their animals. Storing hazardous materials can lead to strict liability for any resulting injuries. Environmental contamination from activities like gasoline storage may also result in strict liability.

Full Conversation

Harvey is driving while intoxicated in his new truck when his tire blows out. He loses control of the truck and crashes into a tree, causing injury to himself and to his vehicle. The tire is determined to be defective. Which of the following defenses would be the most likely to be raised by the tire manufacturer in a product liability cause of action? a. Preemption b. Comparative negligence c. Product misuse d. Assumption of the risk
The tire manufacturer would most likely raise the defense of comparative negligence (option b). This is because Harvey's intoxication while driving may be considered a contributing factor to the accident, even if the tire was defective.
Do you need more information on how comparative negligence works in California?
A fast-food chain restaurant would not be liable for the failure to disclose the adverse health effects of eating its fatty food based on the defense of: a. the knowledgeable user. b. a commonly known danger. c. preemption. d. assumption of the risk.
A fast-food chain restaurant would not be liable for the failure to disclose the adverse health effects of eating its fatty food based on the defense of:
- b. a commonly known danger
This is because the health risks associated with eating fatty foods are generally well-known to the public.
Do you need more details on other defenses used in product liability cases in California?
Astor Manufacturing stores hazardous and volatile chemicals in its warehouse. The warehouse has state-of-the-art equipment to make sure the chemicals do not explode. An unexpected earthquake shakes the warehouse, causing the chemicals to explode and injure William, a passerby on a nearby sidewalk. Astor Manufacturing is: a. not liable to William because he voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. b. strictly liable for William’s injuries. c. liable to William only if the company was grossly negligent. d. not liable to William because it satisfied its duty of care to passersby.
In this scenario, Astor Manufacturing is:
- b. strictly liable for William’s injuries.
In California, companies dealing with hazardous materials can be held strictly liable for damages caused by their activities, regardless of fault or negligence. This means that even if the company took all necessary precautions, they can still be responsible for injuries resulting from their hazardous activities.
Do you need information on how to proceed with a strict liability claim in California?
Marcus's family purchased a trampoline in *. They sold the trampoline at a garage sale in * to Zac's family. In *, Zac is injured while jumping on the trampoline when it collapses. If Zac's family sues the trampoline manufacturer in *, their lawsuit will likely be dismissed based on the: a. no privity of contract. b. statute of limitations. c. statute of repose. d. product misuse.
The lawsuit will likely be dismissed based on the statute of repose (option c). In California, the statute of repose limits the time within which a lawsuit can be filed, and it typically begins at the date of sale or manufacture of the product. Since the trampoline was purchased in *, the statute of repose likely expired before the * lawsuit.
Do you need more details on California's statute of repose for product liability cases?
Glen is a dairy farmer who owns * milk cows. His fences are in poor repair, and his cows are often found eating the grass on Hank's land. Hank believes that Glen is responsible for damages to Hank's land on a theory of strict liability. The court will most likely find that Glen is: a. liable because Glen did not contain his animals. b. liable even though the animals did not pose a serious risk of harm to people. c. not liable because raising cattle is not an inherently dangerous activity. d. liable because cattle are animals, not humans.
The court will most likely find that Glen is:
- a. liable because Glen did not contain his animals.
In California, livestock owners are generally responsible for damages caused by their animals if they fail to contain them properly.
Would you like more information on how to address this situation legally?
West Agricultural Services, Inc. (“WAS”), stores approximately *,* pounds of ammonium nitrate on its property in three storage tanks for use in agriculture fertilizer. Ammonium nitrate is highly explosive if it comes into contact with an ignition source. WAS has taken all necessary precautions to prevent any explosions. If an explosion were to occur with resulting injuries, WAS could be liable under the strict liability theory for damages proximately caused by: a. a manufacturing defect. b. product liability. c. an abnormally dangerous activity. d. a design defect.
In this scenario, WAS could be liable under the strict liability theory for damages proximately caused by:
- c. an abnormally dangerous activity
Storing large quantities of ammonium nitrate, which is highly explosive, is considered an abnormally dangerous activity in California. This means WAS could be held strictly liable for any resulting injuries.
Do you need more details on how strict liability works in California for abnormally dangerous activities?
Exxon owned a gasoline station in Virginia that it used for years. The station had five underground gasoline storage tanks that were not properly maintained. The property was sold to AFA, which discovered gasoline contamination of the soil. AFA filed a lawsuit in Virginia state court contending that Exxon should be held strictly liable for the cost of cleaning up the property. The court most likely found that Exxon was: a. not liable because Exxon had used extreme care to see that no one was harmed. b. liable because gasoline storage is an abnormally dangerous activity. c. not liable because gasoline storage is not an abnormally dangerous activity. d. liable because Exxon had not exercised reasonable care
The court most likely found that Exxon was:
- b. liable because gasoline storage is an abnormally dangerous activity.
In many jurisdictions, including California, storing gasoline in underground tanks is considered an abnormally dangerous activity, making the owner strictly liable for any resulting contamination.
Do you need more information on how to proceed with environmental contamination cases?