Strict liability 3 Essay

Custom Student Mr. Teacher ENG 1001-04 5 June 2017

Strict liability 3

Of “no fault “liability. (Salmond,1996)(2)The liability arises when a person or company sells a defective product which is unreasonable and dangerous to the user. The defect may in the products design or manufacturing, in the instructions or warning necessary for the product’s safety or in the container or packaging. The main feature of this aspect is, here the injured is excluded from proving the negligence of seller. Scope Generally our legal system typically imposes liability for money damages only upon a showing that a person was negligent (i.e. , failed to use due care) or somehow intended to bring about an injury or damage to another.

There are cases, however, where a defaulter can be held responsible for an injury even where no negligence or evil intent can be shown . The doctrine of strict liability imposes legal responsibility for injuries sustained by or as a result of an actor’s conduct, whether or not the actor used reasonable care and regardless of the actor’s state of mind.

Strict liability cases are limited 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 rule of strict liability is mainly attributed to rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher (4) in which the House of Lords well founded the principle of as strict liability. In this case, the2.

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 water to his mill. There were old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe and so did not block them.

When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and the plaintiff’s 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 intentionally 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 plaintiff’s default or that was the consequence of vis major or the act of good.

But in this case the court firmly asserts that it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. Normally 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 carcass of a caterpillar.

On dismissing the appeal of company the court held it was offence of strict liability, therefore it was not sufficient show that the company had taken all reasonable care to avoid the event. . 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 tumbler 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 claim for damages, the court declared that a person who is for gain engages in the business of manufacturing articles of food and drink intended for consumption by members of the public in the form he issues them, is under a duty to take care in the manufacture of these articles.

That duty must be to whom he intends to consume his products. The fact is that he manufacturers his commodities for human consumption. Due to this informal nexus he places himself in a relationship with all the potential consumers of his commodities, and that relationship which he assumes and desires for his own ends impose upon him a duty to take care to avoid injuring them. ” Hence the manufacturer owed her a duty to take care that the bottle did not contain any noxious matter and that he would be liable for the breach of the duty.

Moreover the law looks into the scope of strict liability while it is arising out of indeed consumer’s case. In Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc (7), the leg of four years old was amputated as the result of injuries sustained when her grand father unintentionally backed 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 manufacturer of the riding mower on the basis of strict liability and negligence based on design defect and inadequate warning theories. But 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.

Free Strict liability 3 Essay Sample

B

  • Subject:

  • University/College: University of Chicago

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Date: 5 June 2017

  • Words:

  • Pages:

We will write a custom essay sample on Strict liability 3

for only $16.38 $13.9/page

your testimonials