Welcome

Welcome to my Law blog specifically intended as an aid to law students. I will post comments and white papers, from time to time, and I am happy to carry on conversations with students who are in need of help in law school.


I am most conservative and appropriate in my approach so if you comment and/or have questions to ask, please do so with an equal degree of appropriateness.



I am a Professor of Law at Concord Law School, an Internet Law School located in Los Angeles, though I live, teach and otherwise work out of Lakewood, Colorado, resting up against the foothills just west of Denver.

*******************************************************

DISCLAIMER

THIS SITE IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH, APPROVED BY, OFFICIALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF OR FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED BY CONCORD LAW SCHOOL OR ITS AFFILIATES OR PARENT COMPANIES.

*******************************************************


I have no set schedule of posting, but I hope you will check in from time to time.

*******************************************************

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

5 – Strict Liability in Torts (Strict Liability for Defective Products – Intentional Torts)

5 – Strict Liability in Torts (Strict Liability for Defective Products – Intentional Torts)

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM SOME OF MY CLASS NOTES, SOME OF WHICH IS MY OWN PERSONAL WORK AND SOME OF WHICH BELONGS TO CONCORD LAW SCHOOL.  IT IS POSTED TO HELP MY IL STUDENTS IN PARTICULAR.  IT CANNOT BE DISSEMINATED WITHOUT EXPRESS, WRITTEN PERMISSION.

Now, let’s talk about one final claim in strict product liability: Intentional Torts.

Personally, I think this claim is a bit sneaky in law exams, but I have seen it come up, so I want to mention it. You should consider the situation where a designer or a manufacturer or even a retailer or distributor may know of a defect and purposefully place the product on the market or within the stream of commerce intending to harm consumers. If you see this fact pattern, consider the intentional tort. Almost always it will be a battery claim, but it could be most any intentional tort. You shouldn’t treat this as a product liability matter because it is a “stand-alone” intentional tort.

Here’s an example. Designer is angry because he has created a number of products and no one will buy them. So designer creates a product that he believes the consumer will purchase, but designer knows that the way he has designed it, consumers will be injured.

For instance, the product could explode when used normally. Perhaps the product is advertised as an electronic, home security system that, when activated, will not allow the consumer to leave the home due to a severe electric shock and the system, once activated, cannot be easily disconnected. Maybe we have a battery if someone suffers a shock. Perhaps we have false imprisonment since those in the home cannot leave. If someone suffers severe emotional distress, then we may have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I think you get the point. Actually, now that I think about it, this sounds like a fun exam!

Just kidding, of course.

Professor Doug Holden
© 2010. Douglas S. Holden. All Rights Reserved.

No comments:

Post a Comment