Strict Liability in Business Law

The Ameri send packing reciprocal uprightness adopted the c erstpt of fastidious financial obligation in early 1960s. They began to adopt the receive that the traffickers should bear the cost of injuries or geological switchings in their convergences as they be in the best position to state the risks associated with their fruits. The courts of modern judgment of convictions in like military personnelner provide the sellers the indisputable indebtedness for their faulty harvest-festivals with away the scorn or fault on the offset of the seller. The Ameri quite a little integrity institutes call for the various state law de circumstancesments to recapitulate the developments in exact financial obligation in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of civil wrongs in 1977.In 1997 ALI ap located the Restatement (Third) of Torts products financial obligation, which expands the general language of Section 402A into over 20 different sections addressing specific ap plications of the exact financial obligation ground for recovery. In 1999, the ALI approved Restatement the apportionment of indebtedness, completely succeeding and expanding upon comparable supplys of Restatement (Second) of Torts. This Restatement gives paramount importance to the teachings of law governing apportionment as financial obligation in campaigns where on that point are multiple actors who whitethorn submit differing degrees of indebtedness.(1)The application of unforgiving obligation is important in various segments of traffic law. hither we shall discuss the scope of strict liability, its essentials and exceptions etc. besides we shall see to explore the relationship and contrast of the strict liability with other dimensions in the business law like Rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher, mens rea, nonperfor populacece, product liability and contract. 1. Restatement (Third) of Torts products liability, 1999 Strict financial obligation 2 IntroductionHe erect assuage himself by showing that the flight of stairs was owing to complainants inattention but as nonhing of this sort exists here, it si unnecessary to call for to what exc routine would be decent. Blackburn J Sec. 402A of Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1977 enunciates that seller of either unsound product which is unreasonably t arrivalerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for corporal persecute in that locationby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is s superannuated.It does non matter that the seller has exercised all practi production line get by in the preparation and sale of his product and the user or consumer has non bought the product from or gained into any contractual relation with the seller. Moreover the pack chthonian happen of strict liability elicit be made against Property damage, Compensation for wrongful death, Physical and mental infliction and suffering Loss of consortium for injustice of love and affection, Past, present and hereafter medical bills and Lost past and future wages, DefinitionStrict liability is a profound doctrine that makes some mortals responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any fault on their part. There are situations when a person may liable for some harm even though he is not worryless in causing the like or in that respect is no endeavor to cause the harm or sometimes he may even have made some positive efforts to avert the same. In other words the law recognizes much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) type Strict Liability 3 of no fault liability. (Salmond,1996)(2)The liability arises when a person or party sells a faulty product which is un just and dangerous to the user.The defect may in the products design or manufacturing, in the instructions or warning necessary for the product s rubber eraser or in the find outer or packaging. The main feature of this aspect is, here the injured is excluded from proving the omission of seller. Scope more often than not our efficacious system typically call ins liability for notes damages precisely upon a showing that a person was listless (i. e. , failed to use due care) or somehow intend to mould active an combat lesion or damage to another. There are baptistrys, however, where a deadbeat batch be held responsible for an fault even where no negligence or evil intent shadower be shown .The doctrine of strict liability imposes legal responsibility for injuries sustained by or as a firmness of purpose of an actors maneuver, whether or not the actor used probable care and regardless of the actors state of mind. Strict liability show sides are special(a) to certain narrowly-defined areas of the law, including products liability, ultrahazardous activities, care of animals and certain statutory offenses. ( Faegre & Benson, 2003) (3) The convention of strict liability is mainly attributed to rationale in Rylands Vs Fletcher (4) in which the House of Lords well founded the principle of as strict liability.In this case, the 2. Salmond , Heuston (1996) , Law of Torts, , publisher Sweet & Maxwell 21Rev Ed edition , ISBN-13 978-0421533509 3. Faegre & Benson, (Nov. 2003) UK Trade and Investment, US product liability law 4. Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) L. R 3 H. L 330 Strict Liability 4 defendant got a reservoir constructed through independent contractors, over his land for providing weewee to his mill.There were erstwhile(a) disused shafts under(a) the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe and so did not gourmandize them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and the complainants cold mines on the adjoining land. The defendants did not know the shafts and had not been negligent although the independent contractors had been. In this case the court found that even if the defendant was not negligent or rather, even if the defendant did not deliberately cause the harm or he was careful, he could still be made liable under the rule.The defendant may excuse himself by showing that the occurrence was owing to the complainants default or that was the issue of vis major or the act of good. just in this case the court firmly asserts that it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. usually in these cases, the liability arises not because there was ant fault or negligence on the part of persons, but because he kept such defective products and the same was caused some sort of personal damage to another. In Smedleys Vs Breed, (5)a large manufacturing company of tinned peas was convicted as there found the ashes of a caterpillar.On dismissing the appeal of company the court held it was umbrage of strict liability, whence it was not sufficient show that the company had nonplusn all likely care to avoid the event. 5. Smedleys Vs Breed,(1974) Strict Liability 5 The same view was taken in the famous case Donogue Vs Stevenson (6) in this case A purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a retailer for the appellant.While pouring to the hair curler the appellant found a decomposed body of a snail floated out with her ginger beer. The appellant alleged that she seriously suffered in her health in consequence of having drunk the beer which contains the contaminated contents. On her acquire for damages, the court declared that a person who is for gain engages in the business of manufacturing articles of food and wassail mean for consumption by members of the state-supported in the form he issues them, is under a concern to take care in the industriousness of these articles.That indebtedness must be to whom he intends to consume his products. The fact is that he producers his commodities for human consumption. Due to this informal nexus he functions himself in a relati onship with all the potential consumers of his commodities, and that relationship which he assumes and desires for his own ends impose upon him a craft to take care to avoid injuring them. Hence the shaper owed her a duty to take care that the bottle did not contain any noxious matter and that he would be liable for the appall of the duty.Moreover the law looks into the scope of strict liability while it is arising out of indeed consumers case. In Berrier v. simmpleness Manufacturing, Inc (7), the leg of four years old was amputated as the result of injuries sustained when her grand father unintentionally back over her foot while shearing the lawn with 6. Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 (HL) (Sc) 7. Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc. , (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2008) Strict Liability 6 a riding mower.Her parents moved a case against the payr of the riding mower on the basis of strict liability and negligence based on design defect and pitiful warning theories. plainly the court followed the decision of Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, (8)and held that since the intended user or consumer is limiting the wide application of rule of strict liability the issue still remains that the child is neither user nor intended user or consumer of the mower. Strict liability and mens rea So the offences of strict liability, we give the bounce say, are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to at least one or more grammatical constituents of the actus reus.In R Vs Storkwain (9) the defendant supplied drugs for which a prescription medicine was required, after being handed a forged prescription. There was no license of any negligence or wrong doing on the part of the pharmacist.. On appeal against conviction, it was held that the statute created an offence of strict liability thus no proof of mens rea was required. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd vs Attorney-General for Hong Kong (10) following points has been put quite a little to determine the part t o which strict liability to be imposed.(1) There is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence 8. Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A. 2d 1000 (Pa. 2003) 9. R Vs Storkwain (1986) 10. Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong 1984 2 All ER 503 Strict Liability 7 (2) The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character(3) The presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary deductive reasoning the effect of the statute (4) The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern (5) plane where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability leave alone be effective to labour the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to counteract the focal point of the prohibited act.Essentials of strict liability For the application of this rule the following tierce essentials should be there 1) Injury by a defective product In order to succeed the strict liability under the law the plaintiff must show that the injury must be caused by a defective product whose defect existed at the time of injury and the product should be plaintiffs fit. In the recent case of Ceiba-Geigy (Pty) Ltd v Lushof Farms (Pty) Ltd en n Ander (11) it was held that the liability arising from the defective products not only related to the personal injury but financial loss also.It was gain ground confirmed that when a manufacture undertakes or market the production without any prior tests and - 11. Ceiba-Geigy (Pty) Ltd v Lushof Farms (Pty) Ltd en n Ander, 2002 (2) SA 447 (SCA) Strict Liability 8 consequently it turns hazardous to the consumer such negligent activities expose a liability to the consumer. Here a contractual nexus between the manufacturer and the consumer is not required. (Weir, Tony 2006), (12)2) The goods must be dangerous or defective in temper Here the plaintiff must show that due to the dangerous nature, such goods can not be used for the ordinary purpose or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose. Thus, a manufacturer owes a duty to supply a product flare-up for the ordinary purposes and it is to be used and unafraid notwithstanding a reasonably foreseeable debase that could cause injury. The decisions in famous cases like Batcheller Vs Tunbrige Wells Gas co. ,(13) internal name Co. Vs Baker (14)and West Vs Bristol Tramways Co.(15)manifests that the defective products are whatever in form ,whether it is gas, electricity noxious fumes ,the rule of strict liability can be applied. 3) The goods should leave the manufacturer It is essential that the thing caused injury to the plaintiff must leave from the possession and control of eth defendant. So those defective goods are still with the manufacture is sa fe from the claim of compensation. In interpret Vs Lyons (16) (text) the plaintiff was the employee in the defendants munitions factory. While performing her duty a chide was explode and she was injured . Even 12. Weir,Tony,( 2006),an introduction to Tort law,2nd edn. , Oxford University Press 13. Batcheller Vs Tunbrige Wells Gas co. 84 L. T 765 14. National Telephone Co. Vs Baker (1893) 2 ch 186 15. West Vs Bristol Tramways Co. (1908) 2 K. B 14 16. fill Vs Lyons (1947) A. C 156, 161 Strict Liability 9 though the shell exploded was dangerous in nature it was held that defendants were not liable as the shell was not left from outside the defendants premises and the rule of strict liability could not be applied in this case.4) despoil of warranty Generally, the law imposes certain warranties (or guaranties) on the sale of products. Such warranties intromit that the goods are in proper condition for use and free of defects and that they are fit for a particular purpose. Since the court doesnt disregard the liability of the waivers against the policy and the warranties are limited, the manufacturers and retailers are always held responsible for injuries from the defective and dangerous products. The aspect of breach of warrenty enables the plaintiff to act against the defendant with his complete freedom.Here he need not assert that the defendant is fault. Usually the product claims under the breach of warranty are in quasi contractual nature. every factual statement or promise about the product ,a description of the product made ,any sample or model provided constitutes the warranty upon which the emptor rely to purchase the goods. ( Faegre & Benson,. 2003)(17) Exceptions/limitations The following are the exceptions to the rule of strict liability. 1) plaintiffs own default Damage caused due to the plaintiffs own default was considered to be good defensive measure in rule of strict liability.If the plaintiff suffers damages by 17. ibid 3 Strict Liability 10 his own intrusion into the defendants property he can not complain for the damage so caused. When the damage to the plaintiffs products/property is caused not so much by the escape of eth thing s collected by the defendants as by the bizarre sensitiveness of plaintiffs property itself, the plaintiff cannot recover anything. In Eastern and South African Telegraph C. Ltd. Vs Capetown Tramways Co.(18) the plaintiff submarine cable transmissions were disturbed by escape of electric current from the defendants tramways . It was found that the damage was due to the unusual sensitiveness of the plaintiffs apparatus and such damage will not occur to person carrying on the ordinary business and the defendant held not liable for the such occurrence. 2) Act of god Act of god or Vis Major was also considered to be a good falsifying to an action under the rule of strict liability. If the defect is unforeseen and it is without any human intervention the defense of cat of good can be pleaded. In Tennent Vs Earl of Glasgow (19) the court has framed a well maintained definition for the act of god as the circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human care is not bound to recognize the possibility. 3) Consent of plaintiff In cases of volunti non fit injuria i. e where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous /defective product in defendants possession, then such liability does not arise. entirely such consent must arise for the green 18.Eastern and South African Telegraph C. Ltd Vs Capetown Tramways Co. (1936) A. C 381 19. Tennent Vs Earl of Glasgow (1864) 2M (H. L) 22, 26-27 Strict Liability 11 benefit of both plaintiff and defendant. For eg when two persons are living on the different floors of eth same building each of them is deemed to have consented to the installation of things of common benefit such as the water system, gas pipes or electric wiring . When water has been collected for the common benefit of the plaintiff and the defendant will not be liable for any defects happened to such system unless there is negligence on his part.In North Western Utilities Vs London Guarantee,etc Co. Ltd (20) ,the concept of consent for the common benefit had been formulated as there is no such common benefit between a gas or other public utility undertaking and its consumers . 4) Act of third party If the harm has been caused due to the act of a peculiar who is neither defendants servant nor the defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under this rule. precisely if the act of the stranger is or can be foreseen by the defendant and the damage can be prevented, the defendant must by due care prevent the damage.If not so, the defendant may be held liable for his act. This principle is laid down in Richards Vs Lothian (21). In this case, some strangers blocked the waste pipes of a wash basin, which was otherwise in the control of the defendants, when opened the tap, and the overflowing water damaged the plaintiffs goods. The defendants were held not liable. 5) Statutory authority Generally an act done under the authority of a statute is defense 20. North Western Utilities Vs London Guarantee,etc Co. Ltd (1936) A.C 108 21. Richards Vs Lothian (1913) A. C 263 Strict Liability 12 to an action for tort. But it cannot be pleaded as a defense when there is negligence. In Green Vs Chelsea Waterworks Co. (22) the defendant co. had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A man belonging to the company burst without any negligence on its part, as a consequence of which plaintiffs premises were flooded with water. It was held that the company was not liable as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty. ( Salmond,1996)(23) In practice, the defendant may argue the defenses adopting the following claims.1) The defendant may forward an argument on the basis of misuse of the product sold. But it is to be remembered that the misuse of pro ducts can not be forceeble or there is a chance of rebut this argument by the plaintiff that there should have some kind of anticipation on the part of the manufacturer and prevented such misuse by its product design or in its warning. 2)Secondly the defendant can claim that the product has been altered and modified . In order to prove this he has to take adequate measures to provide warnings in connection with the alteration of the products.3) If there is any complaint by the buyer about the defective design, then the defendant may rebut his claim by demonstrating that the product was at state of art at the time of manufacture. 4) A manufacturer might be allowed to adduce the evidence on the basis of industry - 22. Green Vs Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1864) 70 L. T 547 23. ibid 2 Strict Liability 13 custom and standards and government standards related to the manufacture and design. ( Faegre & Benson, 2003)(24)Before the buyers of tacky products were not allowed to sue a manufacturer o f or seller of a harmful product in commerce. The decision owes to the principle of circumspection emptor let the Buyer beware. Now the burden to prove a products sticks on the other claims of product defect, inadequate instructions, or warnings. Here the plaintiff must prove that that the product caused him harm when it was used for its intended purpose as well. More he has to prove that the manufacturer knew or should have known the product would be used in such a way that would cause harm. Strict liability and NegligenceNegligence is an important element to determine the strict liability of a defendant. Negligence is considered to be the oldest possible action of product liability as well as the strict liability. As a general rule it is for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. The sign burden of making out at least prima facie case of negligence as against the defendant lies heavily on the plaintiff, but once this onus is disaerated, it will be for the defen dant to prove that the incident was the result of inevitable accident or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.(Jones,2007)(25) There are some elements should be proved by the plaintiff in order to make claim against the defendants under the rule of strict liability. 24. ibid 3 25. Jones, A . Micheal (2007), A text book on Tort, Ch. 2, 9th ed. , publ. by Oxford University Press Strict Liability 14 Duty of care The plaintiff must prove that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Mere carelessness on the part of defendant doesnt authorize the plaintiff to sue him.He has to establish that the defendant owed to him a specific legal duty to take care of which he has made a breach. In this connection, in famous case of Donogue Vs Stevenson it was held that a manufacturer of the products which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of interm ediate examination and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation of putting up of the products will result in an injury to consumers life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.(26) Breach of duty Breach of duty means non notice of due care which is required in a particular situation. But here the defendant acted like a reasonable prudent man there is no negligence. In Blyth Vs Birmingham waterworks Co(27). it was clearly explained that negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man ,guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.) Proximate cause The plaintiff should prove that the breach of duty proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries. Finally there should be lawful and sufficient injury happened to the plaintiff due to the defective /dangerous product. 26. ibid 6 27. Blyth Vs Bi rmingham waterworks Co (1856) 11Ex. 281Strict Liability15 The manufacturers always have the duty to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing the products.Poor assembling the products, difference in use of function split and its design specifications, tribulation to inspect the finished products, component parts and failure in correction in any defective products are some examples to lead the plaintiff to claim under the rule of strict liability. ( Faegre & Benson, 2003) (28) In R Vs Lemon (29)the publisher of a gay news were charged with blasphemous libel against Christ through a poem which was considered as an slur to Christianity.The court held that it is the pure case of blaspheme as they had intention to publish so they are responsible for their act. Moreover in alpha cell Vs Woodward,(30) the company was accused of causing polluted water to enter river by using equipment to prevent any overflow in to the river. But due to the collapse of the machine, the polluted things lea ked out to the water. There was no evidence that the defendant is negligent but the court held that the defendant had caused the pollution in the water and they held liable. Strict liability in product liabilityThe product liability defined as the liability of manufacturer, during the chain of distribution, for personal injury, economic loss or property damage caused by sale or use of the product. Here the term product denotes the finished goods as well as those items which may have some impact on the consumer expectations, product safety etc. In order to brought the action under strict liability the plaintiff must prove that injury occurred by 28. ibid 3, 24 29. R Vs Lemon (1979)30. Alphacell Vs Woodward, (1972) Strict Liability16 a defective product whose defect existed at the time of injury and at the time which the product left the control of manufactures control. Such product liability is the legal responsibility of the manufacturer to the buyers. It can be occurred at time of the transaction. Generally there are tercet defects in the product make defendants liable for their act. 1) Manufacturing even though a few products turns in to the fault during the process of a manufacturing the plaintiff may held liable under rule of strict liability.2) Marketing In the case of lack of product warning or instructions, the plaintiff can bring an action against the defendant under such liability. 3) Design A fault in design from previously mentioned might enable the plaintiff to claim for damages against the defendants. ( Miller, Goldberg 2004)(31) Usually the defective and unreasonably dangerous product denotes the pizzazz or usefulness of the product, the availability of safer goods in same need, likelihood of injury and its possible seriousness and danger.In such cases entitles the plaintiff to recover from the defendants for the injury caused by the product. Here he need not prove any muff on the part of the defendant. The law framed such a provision to make the manufacturer vigilant about their production in safe manner. It is the duty of the manufacturer to produce the goods which will not create an extravagant risk of injury to the consumer at any cost. Such claim can be made against the 31. Miller C. J, Goldberg R. S (September 30, 2004) Product liability 2 edition Publisher Oxford University Press, USA ISBN-13 978-0198256786 Strict Liability17 manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer and the maker of component parts. (Restatemet,1999)(32) In recent case of Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. ,(33) 24 Cal. 2d 453 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring) it was clearly utter that on the demand of public policy the responsibility should be fix even though there is no element of negligence under the circumstances of hazardous and dangerous to life and health due to the defective products. In cost of the cases the injured would be such persons who are not aware and unprepared to meet the consequences. It is to the public interest to dis courage the market of defective products that are a menace to the public. It is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the man