Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Arguing Design 'Defect' Under Strict Liability or Warranty
“Defect” in product liability law has two roots: from breach of warranty actions under contract law and from negligence under tort law. In early products liability cases, courts relied upon an implied warranty to permit recovery for personal injuries arising from defective goods. However, that cause of action required privity between the seller and the injured consumer, which could not always be satisfied. This led to the development of the strict liability doctrine in tort law, where privity was not required. Strict liability in tort remedies no longer needs to rely on a contractually based breach of implied warranty to compensate injured plaintiffs.
Under strict liability in tort, a design defect is actionable if the product is not reasonably safe. This requires an assessment by the jury of whether or not the utility of the product outweighs the risk inherent in marketing the product. This risk/utility balancing test is a negligence-inspired approach as it invites the parties to adduce proof about the manufacturer's choices “and ultimately requires the fact finder to make a judgment about the manufacturer's judgment.” See Denny v. Ford Motor Company, 87 NYS2d 248, 255, 639 NYS2d 250, 258 (1995).
The UCC's concept of a defective product requires an inquiry only into whether the product in question was fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. UCC 2-314(2)(c). This inquiry focuses on the consumer's expectations for the performance of the product when used in the customary and foreseeable manner.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.