Liability In Egypt
Product liability defenses may be broadly classified into three categories: first "user – miscouduct defenses '' second'' no-duty defenses'' ,finally ''other,special, ''. the first category of defenses , based on product user`s miscounduct – contributory negligence , comparative fault assumption of – risk , product misuse , unreasonable reliance in a misrepresentation – are the subject of the frequent litigation and commentary . those are the most pervasive forms of defense , potentially applicable in nearly every type of product liability case . The second category of ''defense'' the no-duty type , gives rise to defensive claims that a manufacturer may assert , but which may not be affirmative defenses that a defendant must plead and on which it has the burden of proof . In most states , product misuse falls into the no-duty classification , although it is often viewed '' defense '' Because it so centrally concern consumer misconduct .Another prominent no-duty defensive issue is the state of the art '' defense'' . like product misuse , most courts consider the state of the art issue to be part of the plaintiff`s primafacie case . so a plain tiffer ordinarily must prove that , under the prevailing state of the art at the time a product was made and sold , the main facturer reasonably should have known of the risk and how feasibly to avoid it , Issues such as product misuse , state of the art , and other no-duty rules . ASSUMPTION OF RISK :
Defendant must prove that plaintiff known and appreciated the risk . Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk.
Narrowly upplied instrict liability cases.