Defenses in a Strict Liability Action - Explained
Defeating a Strict Liability Action
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
What Defenses Exist to Strict Product Liability Actions?
The following defenses affect liability in a strict product liability case.
- Contributory and Comparative Negligence
- Assumption of the Risk
- Misuse of a Product
Next Article: Compensatory Damages Return to: TORT LAW
When is Contributory and Comparative Negligence a defense in Strict Product Liability Actions?
These are generally not defenses to strict products liability actions; though, the negligence of the plaintiff may be used to reduce damage awards.
When is Assumption of the Risk a defense in Strict Product Liability Actions?
If a plaintiff knowingly undertakes a dangerous activity to which strict liability applies, she may be barred from recovering from the defendant for harms suffered. Individuals may contractually acknowledge their assumption of any risks in a given activity. In most jurisdictions, however, assumption of the risk may constitute a defense.
When is Misuse of a Product a defense in Strict Product Liability Actions?
Strict product liability depends upon an individual using the product as intended by the manufacturer or in an otherwise reasonable manner. This means that the defendant may avoid liability if the injury to the plaintiff was the result of using the product in a manner that is not intended or is cautioned against.
- Note: Compliance with federal or state standards regarding the manufacture and design of a product is evidence that the product is not defective, but it is not a complete defense. Many states are beginning to adopt a reasonableness standard for design defects, failure to warn, and testing inadequacies. These standards replace the traditional strict liability standard.
- Examples: Handling fireworks while smoking could be an assumption of the risk if the explosive nature of the product is known or expressed to the user. Removing safety guards from equipment is a common misuse that could constitute a defense to strict product liability.
How do you feel about the available defenses to strict product liability actions? Should comparative negligence apply to such actions? Why or why not? Why do you think the assumption of the risk is a commonly accepted defense? Should any defense apply differently depending upon who is being sued (manufacturer, distributor, retailer, etc.)? Why or why not?
Mycroft purchases a new Sherlock model of riding lawnmower from Watson's hardware. After using the mower once, he decides to remove the cover guard from the top of the mower deck. This makes it easier for him to clean excess trimming from the deck after use. One day, he accidentally sticks his foot in the pulleys and severely injures his foot. If he sues Watsons and Sherlock, Inc., under strict product liability, what potential defenses apply?
- Generally, product misuse is a defense for strict product liability actions. The defendant can show that the plaintiff was using the product in some way for which it was not designed. Also, the defendant must show that the plaintiff's misuse of the product was not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, such that if the defendant would have foreseen such actions they could have made changes to suit the circumstances. In the example from the practice question, Watson can likely rely on the defense of misuse of the product, as Mycroft failed to use the lawnmower in the manner prescribed.
- Tort Law (Intro)
- What are Torts?
- What are the types of torts?
- Assault and Battery?
- Intentional Infliction of Emotions Distress?
- Invasion of Privacy?
- False Imprisonment?
- Malicious Prosecution?
- Defamation and 1st Amendment Considerations?
- Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations?
- What is Negligence?
- Negligence A Duty of Care?
- Negligence Breach of Duty of Care?
- What are common defenses to negligence actions?
- What is Strict Liability?
- Strict Liability Causes of Action Examples
- Strict Products Liability
- What defenses exist to strict product liability actions?
- Compensatory damages?
- Punitive damages?
- Treble Damages