Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
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 …
The Useful Life Defense: Embracing The Idea That All Products Eventually Grow Old And Die, Charles E. Cantú
The Useful Life Defense: Embracing The Idea That All Products Eventually Grow Old And Die, Charles E. Cantú
Faculty Articles
To date, no jurisdiction has adopted the useful life defense as part of its common law. Perhaps the time has come to reconsider this position and accept the logical consequences of such a defensive concept. At some point, natural deterioration, rather than a defect in design, manufacturing, or marketing, is the cause of a plaintiff’s injury. Combining the useful life defense with the reasonable expectation theory removes the burden of uniformly determining when a given product is legally dead. The reasonable expectations doctrine places the responsibility for determining the useful life of a product where it belongs—in the hands of …