Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Ch. 7 MGMT
MGMT Exam 2
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Strict Liability | liability without fault. If a person engages in certain activities, then they can be held responsible for any harm that results to others. |
| Abnormally Dangerous Activities | the activity involves potential degree of harm, of a serious nature, involves a high degree of risk that cannot be completely guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care; and is not commonly performed in the community or area |
| Applications of Strict Liability | Keeping Wild Animals Keeping Domestic Animals (qualified) Quid Pro Quo (Sexual harassment) |
| Keeping wild animals | possible escape of exotic animals |
| Keeping Domestic Animals (qualified) | dangerous animal (dog) 2 bites rule- bitten more than once is a dangerous animal |
| Product Liability | Negligence Misrepresentation Strict Liability Breach of Warranty |
| Product Liability Based on Negligence | If a manufacturer fails to exercise due care to make a product safe a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacturer for negligence Plaintiff must show Defendant’s conduct was the cause in fact and proximate cause of the injuries suff |
| Due Care required in | Designing the product Selecting the product Producing (Using appropriate production process) Assembling and testing Warnings on foreseeable risks Inspecting and testing component parts in the product Privity of Contract is not required |
| Plaintiff must show 4 elements of negligence | Duty Breach Causation Injury (damages) |
| Product Liability Based on Misrepresentation | Misrepresentation of a material fact concerning quality, nature or approximate use of the product is made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth As a result of the fraud, injury occurs and the buyer/plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation |
| Examples of misrepresentation | intentional mislabeling of products or concealment of product defects. |
| Strict Product Liability: Public Policy justifications | Consumers should be protected against unsafe products Manufacturers should not escape liability for defective products just because not in privity with injured person Manufactures and sellers are in a position to bear the costs associated with injuries |
| Requirements for Strict Product Liability (First 3) | Product was defective when D sold it D was in the business of selling product Product was unreasonably dangerous to the user because of the defective condition |
| Requirements for Strict Product Liability (Last 3) | P must have an injury to self or property Defective condition must be the proximate cause of injury Product can't have been substantially changed |
| Proving Defective Condition | P needs to show that it was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the hands of the D |
| Unreasonably Dangerous Products | the product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer; or a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible, but the manufacturer failed to produce it |
| Manufacturing Defects | a product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product. |
| Design Defect | the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design |
| Test for Design Defects | A reasonable alternative design was available Because of the D’s failure to adopt the alternative, the product was not reasonable safe |
| Courts can use the (for design defects) | Risk-Utility Analysis – most common test in most states Consumer expectation test- less common test |
| Warning Defects | the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by reasonable instructions or warnings |
| Obvious Risks | No duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known. |
| Foreseeable Misuses | Seller must warn |
| Defenses to Product Liability | Assumption of the Risk Product Misuse Comparative Negligence Commonly Known Dangers Knowledgeable User Statutes of Limitations Statutes of Repose |
| Assumption of the Risk | 1. Plaintiff know the risk created by the product and 2. Voluntarily assumed the risk by using the product anyway |
| Product Misuse | Product is used in a way not intended by the manufacturer NOTE: Court have limited this defense to when the particular use is NOT foreseeable If the use is reasonably foreseeable, the manufacturer must warn |
| Comparative Negligence | assessing Plaintiff’s own negligence |
| Commonly Known Dangers | no warning necessary |
| Knowledgeable User | electrician would know more than a lay person |
| Statutes of Limitations | 2 years |
| Statutes of Repose | 10 years |
Created by:
bella_grace11
Popular Law sets