Law Commons^™

Distinguishing The Concept Of Strict Liability In Tort From Strict Products Liability: Medusa Unveiled, Charles E. Cantú

Faculty Articles

The justifications for strict products liability and other cases of strict liability in torts are different and distinct. The United States judiciary has limited strict liability in tort law to seven distinct scenarios: (1) animals that are trespassing, are domesticated but vicious, or are wild by nature; (2) fact situations involving ultra-hazardous activities; (3) nuisance; (4) misrepresentation; (5) vicarious liability; (6) defamation; or (7) a workman’s compensation statute.

Strict liability is imposed for harm caused by animals capable of inflicting extensive harm. It also justifies liability for ultra-hazardous activities on the basis that an individual undertakes an activity that is …

Distinguishing The Concept Of Strict Liability For Ultra-Hazardous Activities From Strict Products Liability Under Section 402a Of The Restatement (Second) Of Torts: Two Parallel Lines Of Reasoning That Should Never Meet, Charles E. Cantú

Faculty Articles

Strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities is entirely different from strict products liability. Since strict liability has been applied to so-called dangerous or ultra-hazardous activities, the application has been limited to instances where the defendant has, for his own purpose, created an abnormal risk of harm to those surrounding him, and therefore should pay for any resulting injury. Section 520 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts explains how one weighs the risk of harm emanating from ultra-hazardous activities against the appropriateness to its surroundings. This is not, however, how one determines the applicability of strict liability in the area of defective …

A New Look At An Old Conundrum: The Determinative Test For The Hybrid Sales/Service Transaction Under Section 402a Of The Restatement (Second) Of Torts, Charles E. Cantú

Faculty Articles

Historically, the concept of strict tort liability was confined to two areas: injuries resulting from dangerous activities, and harm inflicted by wild and/or dangerous animals. However, in 1963, the California Supreme Court held in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products that the theory of strict liability in tort also included products. Then, in 1965, The Restatement (Second) of Torts adopted Section 402A and endorsed the theory of Greenman that strict liability was available as a distinct cause of action in litigation involving injuries caused by defective products.

Though there was some initial confusion associated with the application of some of the …

Reflections On Section 402a Of The Restatement (Second) Of Torts: A Mirror Crack’D, Charles E. Cantú

Faculty Articles

Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts forever changed the means by which an individual would be held liable for placing defective products into the stream of commerce. Strict liability, which had previously been restricted to cases involving dangerous activities and wild animals, became a new cause of action in almost all product cases. As a result, this section of the Restatement has been a catalyst to a multitude of litigation. More causes of action have been brought alleging strict liability for injuries caused by a defective product than in any other area of tort law.

Now that almost …