Liability Without Fault

There are situations where a person may be held liable for injuring another even though the person has no intent to injure anyone and, in fact, acts with the utmost care to prevent harm to others. This is called liability without fault or sometimes strict (absolute) liability. Although the conduct of the one causing injury is blameless, the law allocates the risk of loss to the defendant for reasons of social policy. Strict liability makes the defendant liable not on the basis of provable fault, but rather on the basis that the defendant engaged in a particular activity, which resulted in injury. In strict liability, proof of both the activity and the injury substitutes for proof of a violation of a duty. For example, the law imposes strict liability on a manu­facturer of a detective product to protect consumers and to require product sellers to bear the social costs of products they produce. There are three major areas of liability without fault: strict products liability (ответственность за качество товара), liability for injuries from abnormally dangerous activities, and liability for injuries by animals.

Strict Products Liability. The sale of goods which are unreasonably dangerous gives rise to strict products liability. The law of products liability is complex and is particularly important to manufacturers and other businesses that sell or lease goods.

Every year, thousand of consumers suffer serious injuries from defective products. Many of these injuries could be avoid­ed if the manufacturers or distributors of these products took additional steps to ensure consumer safety. The damages the consumer is entitled to receive may include compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, loss of physical capacity, pain, suf­fering, and mental anguish. Punitive damages are also available in many jurisdictions to punish defendants in those cases involving particularly egregious conduct which demonstrates a reckless or wanton disregard for the safety of the public.

The rule imposing liability without fault for defective prod­ucts provides as follows: «One who sells a defective produce that is unreasonably dangerous is liable to the ultimate user or con­sumer if the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product and the product reaches the user or consumer without substantial changes in the condition in which it is sold».

A major reason for adopting this rule of liability without fault is social policy. The courts have repeatedly stated that the risk of injury from defective products should be borne by the manufacturer or seller, who can insure against losses and dis­tribute the cost to the public as an expense of doing business.

Under this rule, the plaintiff must prove that the product is unreasonably dangerous, that is the product does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer or user as to its safety. The plaintiff need not prove that the seller was negli­gent, and, in fact, the seller may be liable even though he or she exercised all possible care to prevent harm to others. Product can be unreasonably dangerous due to a defective design, man­ufacturing defect or a labeling defect. A design defect occurs when the entire product is defective in the manner in which it was designed, that is the entire line of products produced by the manufacturer is unreasonably dangerous. The product may be unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing defect which occurs when the manufacturer fails to make the product in accordance with plans and specification set forth for the product. The actual design of the product might be flawless, but, one or more of the items is dangerously defective because it was made improperly. Finally, the product may be unreasonably dangerous due to inadequate instructions or warnings regard­ing the use, operation, maintenance or cleaning of the product.

Generally, in a product liability action, the consumer who has been injured by a defective product should seek compensa­tion from not only the manufacturer of the product, but also all other entities responsible for placing the defective product on the market. All business sellers in the chain of distribution of a product, including the maker of a defective component part, the manufacturer of the product, the wholesaler, and the retailer, are liable for the plaintiffs injuries, even if they were not negli­gent in failing to discover the defect. One who knows that the product defect exists, should not have allowed the defective product to be marketed. By allowing the defective product to enter the market, he has breached his duty. Courts recently have extended strict liability to commercial lessors, businesses engaged in the leasing of products. Thus, an automobile or equipment rental business is liable without fault for injuries caused by a defect in the goods leased. The courts have also allowed persons other than users and purchasers (such as fami­ly members. guests, or mere bystanders) to recover damages for injury resulting from a defective product when in their view the injury was foreseeable. However, the plaintiff can recover only for physical injury or property damage caused by the dangerous product, not economic losses (e.g., lost sales or profits caused by defective equipment).

Assumption of risk and unforeseeable misuse of the product are defenses in a strict product liability lawsuit. Manufactures, distributors, and retailers have a duty to guard against injuries likely to result from the foreseeable use of the product. But since it is possible that certain products will be misused by cus­tomers, the defendants also have a duty to guard against those injuries that result from any foreseeable misuse of the product that could have been reasonably anticipated. The defendant may assert that the plaintiff made an abnormal use of the prod­uct which the defendant could not reasonably foresee, such as using a glass bottle to hammer a nail. Similarly a plaintiff who has knowledge of dangerous defect but continues to use the product may be guilty of assumption of risk. The plaintiff's care­less use of the product or failure to inspect the product for defects is generally not a defense. However, comparative negli­gence rules can be applied to strict products liability actions.

Decide whether the statements are true (T) or false (F). Give reasons for your deci­sions.

1. Liability without fault makes the defendant liable on the bases of engaging in a particular activity which led to the injury.

2. Consumers as well as manufactures are liable for injuries from defective products.

3. If the product does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer as far as its safety is concerned it is a ground for calling it unreasonably dangerous.

4. Under the law only the manufacture is responsible for plac­ing the dangerous defective product on the market.

5. The law makes it possible for the plaintiff to recover only for physical injury or property damage caused by the dangerous product, not economic losses.

6. Knowing that the product defect exists and allowing the defective product to be marketed means a breach of duty by those who should not allow the defective product to be dis­tributed on the market.

Text 4

Read the text about two other areas of liability without fault and complete the spaces using the sentences which are given below. There is one extra sentence which you do not need to use.

Besides strict product liability there are two other areas of liability without fault.

Abnormally dangerous activities. As a general rule, one is liable without fault for injuring the person or property of another by an abnormally dangerous activity. Typical examples of abnor­mally dangerous activities are blasting in a residential neighbor­hood, crop dusting near livestock, storing quantities of explo­sives in the heart of a city, and drilling an oil well in a populated area. (1) ... They generally cannot be conducted without injury to persons or property regardless of the level of care taken by the defendant. Considerable danger remains even after all rea­sonable care has been used to confine the effects of the blast. Moreover, people who are injured or suffer property damage as a result of vibrations from blasting can do little either by taking greater care or by altering their activity to avoid or reduce damage.

On the other hand, the courts have held that the following are not abnormally dangerous: storing gasoline in a service sta­tion, maintaining an ordinary fire in a factory, and stocking a small quantity of dynamite for sale in a hardware store. A per­son who engages in these activities is not liable without fault for injuring another. (2) ... Judging by the number of cases, the most common example of an ultra hazardous activity is blasting with explosives.

An activity may be abnormally dangerous at one point in time, but lose that character because of advances in technology or changes in common usage. For example, in the early decades of the twentieth century, flying an airplane was considered an abnormally dangerous activity. Airplane owners traditionally were held strictly liable for damage caused to people or proper­ty on the ground. As flying became both an established and a relatively safe activity, the likelihood that strict liability for ground damage would reduce the amount of flying, and with it the amount of ground damage, fell. In most states today, because of the safety of modern airplanes, the owner or operator of an airplane is held liable only when negligence is proved.

The defendant may assert the defense of assumption of risk and prove that the plaintiff voluntarily exposed his or her per­son or property to the risk from the abnormally dangerous activity. Also, statutes ordinarily immunize persons and firms from liability for laying gas or electric lines in public streets or doing blasting for the state, provided they are not guilty of neg­ligence. (3) ...

Liability for injuries by animals. Liability for the damages caused by a person's animals depends upon a number of factors, but an important one is whether the animal is wild or domesti­cated. The owner is strictly liable for injuries inflicted by a wild animal, an animal that is dangerous by its nature and incapable of being domesticated. Such animals include lions, tigers, bears, elephants, and wolves. As a general rule, liability is absolute even though the animal has been raised as a pet and has shown no outward signs of being dangerous.

A different common law rule pertains to domestic animals and domesticated wild animals that normally are not likely to injure people. (4) ... Domestic animals include dogs, cats, sheep, horses, and cows. Some courts have held that deer and monkeys are wild animals capable of being domesticated. In many states the legislatures have enacted special statutes which hold an owner strictly liable for injuries from a dog, regardless of the owner's knowledge or prior warning.

In most states, the owner of an animal that is likely to roam and injure the person or property of another is liable without fault for damages inflicted when the animal enters upon anoth­er's land. Such animals include cattle, horses, sheep, hogs, turkeys, chickens, and most wild animals, since their natural tendency is to escape.

In an action for injuries inflicted by an animal, the defendant may assert assumption of risk as a defense. (5) ... To avoid lia­bility for a vicious watchdog, a landowner must post adequate warnings of the dog's presence. A «Beware of Dog» sign may not be adequate to warn someone that the dog is vicious and not just a dog that barks at people. In most states the defendant is not allowed to assert contributory negligence as a defense, but comparative negligence is applied in some states.

Use the sentences below to complete the spaces in the text. There is one extra sentence which you do not need to use:

A. If the plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself or herself to a known risk, the owner is not liable.

B. In general, however, the plaintiff's contributory fault is not a defense.

C. Moreover it determines the extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage.

D. Such highly dangerous activities are inappropriate or unusu­al for that particular place.

E. However he may be liable for the tort of negligence if the person fails to exercise due care.

F The owner is liable for injuries inflicted only if the owner knows, or has reason to know; of a dangerous propensity in the particular animal.

Text 5

Read the text and match these headings (A-F) with the paragraphs (1-6) they belong to:

A Disparagement of Business Property

B. Defamation of a Business

C. Unfair Trade Practices

D. Wrongful Entry into Business

E. The Nature of Competitive Tort

F. Interference with Business Relations