...College of Law 1-1-1987 Strict Liability for Chattel Leasing Richard C. Ausness University of Kentucky College of Law, rausness@uky.edu Recommended Citation Richard C. Ausness, Strict Liability for Chattel Leasing, 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 273 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. ARTICLES S TRICT LIABILITY F OR C HATTEL L EASINGt R ichard C. Ausness* Leasing has become an increasingly popular substitute f or outright purchases as a means o f acquiring products f or use. Few courts a nd commentators, however, have addressed the question o f whether the principles o f strict products liability which apply to sellers also apply to lessors. I n this Article, Professor Ausness reviews the historical basisfor imposing strict liability in tort on sellers a nd applies these rationales to five basic kinds o f lease transactions. H e concludes that strict liability should not apply when a product defect arises after the leased product is placed in the hands o f the lessee (as contrasted with the more typical case o f " manufacturing defects" which arise when the product is manufactured), nor when the leased product is a fixture attached to real property. I n such cases, the lessor should be held to a negligence standard o f liability. However, in a ll other cases...
Words: 4390 - Pages: 18
...The Strict Liability Theory Introduction Strict Liability in simplistic terms can imply an individual or company being liable for their deeds, conducts and outcomes that result in damages to others. A personal complaint of injury for a strict liability case is not as a consequence of a foreplanned action or careless deed (Boatright, 2012). The respondent's action should have triggered strict liability and that the complainant suffered harm. In fact, one cannot understand what strict liability in the criminal law means, in the same token understand why it is considered unorthodox and morally dyslogistic. The respondent's responsibility and blameworthiness, or mental fault should be evaluated and, more particularly, the usual relevance of a respondent's mistakes in determining this error. Furthermore, strict liability is a form of responsibility that may occur in either a criminal or a civil context. Equally important to note, strict liability causes an individual to legally answerable for the loss and damage that his or her actions caused because of his or her deeds of omissions irrespective of incrimination. For strict liability to be induced and used in a lawsuit, proving fault or negligence is not the main desire but rather showing the danger to the complainant (Martin, 2014). Strict liability flows not from carelessness, but from the v option to conduct the activity at all. Strict liability does not base on a fault in the time-honored sense of the term, but on the policy...
Words: 3139 - Pages: 13
...COMPARISON BETWEEN STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY THE CONCEPT OF STRICT LIABILITY There are many activities which are so dangerous that they constitute constant danger to person and property to others. The law may deal with them in two ways. It may prohibit them altogether. It may allow them to be carried on for the sake of social utility but only in accordance with statutory provisions laying down safety measures and providing for sanctions for non-compliance through the doctrine of strict liability. The undertakers of the activities have to compensate for the damage caused irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of the activities. In this aspect, the principle of strict liability resembles negligence which is also based on foreseeable harm. But the difference lies in that the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions and so if the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot be held liable except possibly in those cases where he should have closed down the undertaking. Such a consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. The rationale behind strict liability is that the activities coming within its fold are those entailing extraordinary risk to others, either in...
Words: 4576 - Pages: 19
...“A satisfactory justification for strict liability in tort law has yet to be found.” It is generally recognised that being responsible at law or in ordinary life are very different concepts: one is based on blame while the other focuses on fault. This imbalance is embedded in the tension between the two bases of liability recognised in the law of torts. On the one hand, as stressed in Hoffman v Jones, ‘the most equitable result that can ever be reached by a court is the equation of liability with fault’. Courts have energetically defended the view that fault is crucial in establishing responsibility. On the other hand, the same jurisdictions have operated a shift since Rylands v Fletcher from this doctrinal claim to adopt a strict liability standard in particular circumstances. Despite its appearance in statutes, many claim that a satisfactory justification for strict liability in tort law has yet to be found. This essay will nevertheless argue that this stand is unsupported and untrue: it is nonsensical to call for one unique explanation for this area of the law. The law on strict liability responds to a social demand which should not be reduced to one ‘metatheory’. The first two parts of this essay will be dedicated to the analysis the ‘social and economic benefits’ of strict liability mentioned in Chavez v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. We shall then argue that these justifications are best understood when interrelated with a broader moral justification. I] Social...
Words: 3156 - Pages: 13
...cause damage to someone. Liability and negligence are two of the main portions and apply to just about all tort cases in some way or another. Taking a look at a few different cases we can see both negligence and liability on both parties of each case and the decision can be yours to make. Keep in mind that negligence is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances ("Negligence", 2011). Strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions ("Strict Liability", 2011). The first case deals with vehicles and keyless entry and remote start. The video tells the story about owners of keyless start vehicles that were driven and then parked inside of their garage where they were left running and ended up either injuring the owners or in some cases killing them, five (5) in just a few years. Keyless entry and remote start vehicles use a key fob that allows the owner to start and drive the vehicles without ever putting an actual key into an ignition and also allows them to stop driving without having to turn the car off manually. What is happening are the drivers are parking and getting out without pressing the engine stop button. This is filling to home up with toxic gas and injuring the owners. Negligence and liability come into play on both sides...
Words: 983 - Pages: 4
...Traditional Litigation: Encountering Risks and Reducing Exposure When dealing with traditional litigation, a business or organization will risk scrutiny of the company’s image or brand, and clearly suffers monetary costs, which can affect the entity’s bottom line. Reflecting on the traditional litigation system, dependent on the type of trial, for example, a civil trial, the burden of proof is rested upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff must present truthful evidence or proof to a judge or jury against the defendant. Thus, the strength of the plaintiff’s credible facts and truth must be supportive of the plaintiff’s claim and proven stronger than the defendant’s defense. Considering the requirements to support a case (plaintiff or defendant), research and costs will rise. The initial course of the discovery process is a difficult factor in itself and has several disadvantages for each party involved. It is expensive, time consuming, and for the most part, a burden in effort to gather relevant evidence to make or strengthen the plaintiff and/or prosecutors case. On the other hand, for the defendant, the discovery process could reveal implicating evidence causing a weak defense or no defense by any means. As an advantage however, both parties, through the discovery process, are given the opportunity to civilly research, view, and gather relevant evidence and information related to the case, which supplies an advantage for each or either party to identify the strengths and weaknesses...
Words: 930 - Pages: 4
...In the case of WIRETIME, Inc., tort has been committed. Per the reading, “a tort is when one party has acted, or in some cases failed to act, and that action or inaction triggered a loss to be grieved by another party” (Melvin, 2011). WIRETIME, Inc., made a defamatory statement about Bugusa, Inc.’s reputation. WIRETIME, Inc., also enlisted an ad in a well-known magazine that enclosed a statement alleging BUGusa for having bad merchandise. BUGusa doubtfully will undergo reputation or loss of clients due to the negative hoarding that WIRETIME, Inc., bashed. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet) Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions. In this case, the liability BUGusa, Inc., may encounter for Walter’s actions is that he committed a tort when locking Steve inside a soundproof room and threatened him with physical harm. Keeping Steve in a soundproof room can be defined as false imprisonment. False imprisonment prohibits wrongful restraining, confining or detaining a person without that person’s consent (Penal Code 236). Criminal threatening sometimes known as the terrorist threat, malicious harassment, or by other terms, occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else. BUGusa, Inc., has the right and free will to sue Steve for intentionally and willfully spying on the companies’ confidential background. Bugusa, Inc. Worksheet LAW/421...
Words: 1004 - Pages: 5
...(Melvin, 2011, p. 208), “negligence is an accidental (without willful intent) event that caused harm to another party.” BugUSA would be able to state that if Randy would have yielded properly at the intersection there would not have been an accident. It would come down to if BugUSA would be able to prove that Randy’s negligence was at fault for the accident. Scenario 6: This would as well be a hard case. Sally would be able to use the tort strict liability and possibly negligence. According to (Melvin, 2011, 208), strict liability is when the tortfeasor may be held liable for an act regardless of intent or willfulness, applies primarily in cases of defective products and abnormal dangerous activities. In this case, BugUSA was aware that an insulator could have prevented the short circuiting which lead to her injury. Yet BugUSA would be able to say that they are not the ones at fault because there is a newer version of the same product and that it is the police department that should be taking on the negligence and strict liability cases because they had not yet purchased the newer equipment or insulators for the older versions. In order for her to have a successful case, she would have to prove that BugUSA had known of the dangerous and did not offer a solution ot the police...
Words: 311 - Pages: 2
...that will control and minimize the impact of the company’s waste toward the environment. The purpose of this paper is to recognize and minimize tort and regulatory risk plan for a company such as Alumina Inc. and explain how regulatory risks may be identified and managed through preventive, detective, and corrective measures. This plan has to be implemented according to the process and the technology employs within the company, in order to be efficiently and at the same time comply with the purpose of protecting the environment and meet the governmental regulations. Tort law imposes a duty on persons and businesses agents to prevent intentional and negligent injury to others in the society. Torts are unintentional negligence and strict liability. Tort law protects a person from unauthorized touching restrain or other type of contact. Also protects a person’s reputation and privacy, protects people’s rights and takes action for any violation of these rights (Cheeseman, 2010). Recognizing and minimizing Torts within the company...
Words: 1155 - Pages: 5
...political philosophy. The figure of the reasonable person is central both to the law of negligence—where it serves as the master criterion of justified risk imposition—and to the law of intentional torts—where it helps to define the contours of permissible self-defense, the sensibility by which the offensiveness of contact in battery is measured, and the content of the consent given in connection with matters as diverse as The concept of contact sports and medical operations.1 reasonableness figures prominently in strict liability as well. The intentional infliction of unreasonable harm triggers liability for damages in the law of nuisance, and strict liability in general can be fruitfully understood as a form of liability applicable when the conduct which leads to accidental injury is reasonable, but the failure to make reparation for the harm done is unreasonable.2 Principles of fairness figure more prominently in the judicial rhetoric of strict products liability than economic ideas of efficient precaution and efficient insurance do.3 * William T. Dalessi Professor of Law, USC Law School. For instruction and advice, I am grateful to Ken Abraham, Scott Altman, Charles Fried, Richard Fallon, Louis Kaplow, Scott Michelman, Lewis Sargentich, Arthur Ripstein, and Ben Zipursky; to the participants at the conference; and to the participants at a faculty workshop at Harvard Law School. Special thanks are owed to Jim Fleming for organizing the conference and to Ben Zipursky for organizing...
Words: 32629 - Pages: 131
...rational is defined in terms of reasonableness. Fault is generally an essential requirement of liability in the law of tort. Liability in negligence requires proof of a breach of duty. A breach of duty arises when the defendant fails to act or not act as “the reasonable man” would have. In Bolton v Stone the defendants acted as a reasonable man would have, by taking action in creating a higher fence around the cricket ground to minimise the risk of people outside the ground being injured by the cricket balls. However, in Paris v Stephney borough council, the court held that in light of potential serious consequences posed by welding to an employee with only one eye, the employer should have taken reasonable action in providing safety goggles. Liability under the occupiers liability act 1957 also required proof of fault. Fault is also relevant to the general defence of a contributory negligence under the law reform act 1945. S.1(1) damages are reduced according to the claimants responsibility for the damage. In Froom v Butcher, the claimant’s damages were reduced by 25% due to his failure to wear a seatbelt. There are however areas of tort in which there is no need to provide fault. For example, nuisance is a strict liability tort. The defendant cannot claim as a defence that he took reasonable care to avoid causing nuisance. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is another strict liability tort, however since the case of Cambridge water company v Eastern countries leather plc (1994)...
Words: 926 - Pages: 4
...between ‘fault liability’ and ‘strict liability’: four ideal types of liability in tort law 1. Are the notions of fault and strict liability misleading? • two notions should be considered as they will be applied all along the four types of liability: - fault (as in fault liability) ( liability for one’s own faults. - risk (or strict liability) ( accountability, based on criteria other than individual fault, for the consequences resulting from an unlawful/illegal act. Four ideal types • a) Individual liability for one’s own faults ▪ the basis for this type of liability lies in the conduct of the person held liable. ( this deserves the qualification ‘fault liability’. ▪ article 6:162 BW is the legal basis for the duty to pay damages where the conduct of a person is qualified as wrongful. • b) Individual liability without blameworthiness ▪ accountability is required. ( elements of fault, as wrongful conduct provides the foundation but also elements of strict liability, since there may be no grounds for apportioning blame. ▪ article 6:162 BW as well as article 6:165 BW may provide some legal basis. • c) Liability for damage caused by others (vicarious liability) ▪ this is a form of strict liability, insofar as there is strict responsibility for the fault of others. ▪ Articles 6:169, 6:170, 6:171 and 6:172 BW provide some legal bases for this form of liability. • d) Liability...
Words: 986 - Pages: 4
...Legal Issue: The Plaintiff, Daniel Boone, is suing Zoom Car Company for medical costs he claims are attributed to the fault of a malfunctioning compass that was installed by Zoom Car Company and came with the car. Mr. Boone claims that to the fault of the compass, he got lost and drove into a high crime area and was severely beaten there. Zoom Car Company does not make the compasses that are featured in their cars; Corrigan Rulers makes them. Is there a defect in the manufacture of the compass installed in the car? If so, does the doctrine of strict liability hold Zoom Car Company liable for any injuries caused by the defect? Plaintiff's Argument: The Plaintiff argues that although Zoom Car Company is not the one who makes the compass installed in their cars, they are liable to the consumer or user for any issues and defects that come with the compass according to the doctrine of strict liability in tort. The doctrine makes “...manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and others in the chain of distribution of a defective product liable for the damages caused by the defect, irrespective of fault” (The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce, 121). The compass installed in the car was defective and did not perform its intended function of providing correct directions. This means that the compass had a defect in manufacture. According to The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce, there are three ways that a defect in manufacture can occur:...
Words: 810 - Pages: 4
...Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Describe the nature of general tortuous liability comparing and contrasting to contractual liability (3a) 3 3 Explain the liability applicable to an occupier of premise (3b) 5 4 Explain the liability applicable to the staff and discuss the nature of employer liability with reference to vicarious liability and health and safety implications of his employees (3c) 7 5 Distinguish strict liability from general tortuous liability with reference to Prime Computers (3 d) 10 6 Explain and apply the various elements of the tort of negligence and analyse the practical applications of breach of duty and remoteness in the given situation (4 a, b) 11 7 Conclusion 15 8 Reference 16 Introduction As a legal executive in a firm of solicitors, some clients have approached and seeking advice on several claims and legal disputes, which have recently arisen to them. I am required to write a report for the following contents: 1. General tortuous liability in comparison to contractual liability. 2. Vicarious liability and health and safety issues. 3. Strict liability in comparison with general tortuous liability. 4. The various elements of the tort of negligence. Describe the nature of general tortuous liability comparing and contrasting to contractual liability (3a) A tort is a legal wrong, and the principle is the law gives various rights to person, such as right of a person in...
Words: 4214 - Pages: 17
...so they would no longer have competition and keep customers to themselves. Julie was upset with what the defendants did and slapped Tom causing him to push her. Julie did something unlawful by slapping Tom causing an assault and battery, which he returned the harm by pushing her down. Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Meyer, Barkacs, Dhoodge, and Williamson (2012) define the legal principle of assault and battery as “An assault occurs when a person is placed in fear or apprehension of an offensive bodily contact; if the contact occurs, it constitutes a battery “(p. 187). Another tort that occurred in this scenario is the strict liability tort when Tom takes Julia in his car against her will because he is afraid of the police. Tom committed an action inherently dangerous and not safe to Julie. Tort differences Intentional tart, assault and battery, and strict liability are torts that are associated with causing harm to another individual. The defendants committed a civil wrong to J&M property and to Julie with an intentional interference. The...
Words: 465 - Pages: 2
