Preview

Strict Liability for Defective Product

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
446 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Strict Liability for Defective Product
Strict Liability for Defective Products - Part X of the CPA 1999
Section 68(1) provides that where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect product, the following persons shall be liable for the damage. The plaintiff only has to prove damage or defect in the product.
Part X of CPA does not cover every product. Section 66 provides types of product such as goods and component parts and raw materials. Section 3 provides definition of goods. Only the goods which are purchased for private and non commercial purpose are covered by the CPA. Goods may include utilities such as supply of gas, electricity and water. Pharmaceutical products are arguably within the meaning of goods although CPA generally does not have provision about pharmaceutical products. Section 68(5) of CPA provides that farmers and fisherman and other persons in distribution of unprocessed agricultural product are exempted from strict liability.
Part X of CPA does not make every person liable. Section 68(1) lists three principal persons who may be strictly liable under Part X : producer of product, own brander and importer. CPA makes it clear that the liability is primarily placed o the producer of product. Definition of producer widely enough to cover every person involved in the manufacturing process, pre-manufacturing process activity and the processing of a natural product. Section 68 (1) (b) applies liability to any person who by putting his name on the product has held himself out to be the producer of product. This provision is mainly intended to catch chain department stores and supermarkets who are generally economically powerful. Section 68(1) (c) applies liability on the person who has imported the product into Malaysia. This provision is intended to overcome the practical problem of suing his foreign producer in his own country. Section 68(2) provides that importer or producer or own- brander fails to inform the injured person within reasonable time, he shall be liable.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Culpepper V. Weihrauch KG

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages

    On August 12, 1996, Plaintiff, Ann Culpepper, filled action against defendant, Hermann Weihrauch KG, ETC., seeking damages for injuries she sustained after an accidental shooting from the gun she owned that was manufactured by Weihrauch. Ann Culpepper imposed liability on Weihrauch under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine of 1979. This doctrine provides liability “if a company manufactured, designed or sold a defective product, which by unreasonably unsafe conditions, injured someone or damaged their property when such product, unaltered, was put to its intended use.”…

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    "In determining whether liability exists under a duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct in question was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, that [the] defendant owed a duty to [the] plaintiff which [the] defendant breached and that the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached." The court used a different set of principles to determine DOTD’s liability. “The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that: (1) the DOTD had custody of the thing that caused the plaintiff's injuries or damages; (2) the thing was defective because it had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the DOTD had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and did not take corrective measures within a reasonable time; and (4) the defect in the thing was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's…

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In today's economic market, companies rarely produce all the products or parts necessary to manufacture their finished products. However, when the final product hits the market, the manufacturer is responsible for the final product. The producer of the defective part had a responsibility to inspect their product before sale to its customer Buick. In turn, it was Buick's responsibility to inspect the product for defect before sale to the dealerships who in turn would sell to the ultimate purchasers in general public. Since automobiles are inherently dangerous, a duty of care is owed to the ultimate purchasers.…

    • 385 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bugusa Case Study

    • 914 Words
    • 4 Pages

    According to (Melvin, 2011) “Products liability refers to the liability of any seller (including the manufacturer, retailer, and any intermediary seller such as a wholesaler) of a product that, because of a defect, causes harm to a consumer.” (P.226). Sally could argue BUGusa were negligent by not including the insulation needed on the equipment just to save on production costs. However, a more appealing option for Sally to pursue would be a strict liability tort because she doesn’t need to prove the elements of negligence. Sally could argue that BUGusa are strictly liable for her injuries because they placed a product on the market without insulation and she was injured as a…

    • 914 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    for strict liability torts. BUGusa, Inc. failed to provide an insulator in their original design for their wire tappers due to the production cost. BUGusa, Inc. has since realized its mistake, yet did not recall the older versions of the equipment, leaving Sally at risk of injury, which is exactly what happened. Strict Liability can be defined, as; “the legal responsibility for damages or injury, even if the person found strictly liable is not at fault.” (USLegal.com, 2014). Under this definition, Sally does not have to prove that BUGusa, Inc. was negligent in their actions producing their product, just that the product in question was defective, and it caused her…

    • 877 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kolchek Negligence Case

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages

    3. 1. The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it.…

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Negligence Case Study

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Mary is cutting weeds at her home. She is unable to trim some weeds she finds, because they grew between the rocks, so she removes the protective guard on the weed trimmer and trims the weeds. There are no warnings on the weed trimmer advising against removing the guard. She hits a rock, which is thrown to the side, hitting her neighbor in the eye and causing permanent damage. What kind of tort claim does the neighbor have? Who are the possible defendants?…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Denny V Ford

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Nancy approached a legal battle on three grounds. First, was a strict products liability. A manufacturer who places a product on the market in a defective condition is liable for injury which results from use of the product when the product is used for its intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose. In order for Nancy to use this claim the she had to prove by that Ford Motor Company placed the Bronco II on the market in a defective condition. According to the United States Second Circuit of appeals, “A product is defective if it is not reasonably safe. I instruct you that if the Bronco II, at the time it left the seller's hands, was so likely to be harmful to people that a reasonable manufacturer or person who had actual knowledge of its potential for producing injury would…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Legt1710

    • 2593 Words
    • 11 Pages

    Please note – in this unit we are NOT DEALING with: • Sale of Goods • Product Liability Therefore the following paragraphs in Latimer are NOT RELEVANT: ¶7-011 to ¶7-215…

    • 2593 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Wrongful Death Mini-Guide

    • 593 Words
    • 3 Pages

    If a company fails to recognize a defect and/or fails to report the defect to consumers and retailers, it may be grounds for lawsuit. In most situations, the product is removed before it can cause harm, but in some situations the defect may cause a death before the defect has been identified. In this situation, it may be grounds for a wrongful death suit.…

    • 593 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Negligence Case Study

    • 1038 Words
    • 5 Pages

    According to Commercial Escrow Company v. Rockport Rebel, negligence is a “conduct, which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others”. And in this case, Mechanics National Bank failed to remove the lien on Ms. Warren’s Lagoon Beach property, which means it, fell beneath the standard for civic protection recognized by law.…

    • 1038 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Elements Of Negligence

    • 94 Words
    • 1 Page

    Negligence is a failure to use reasonable care that results in harm to another party.…

    • 94 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    What are the elements of negligence? How does an intentional tort differ from negligence? Provide examples. How does the strict liability doctrine apply to the practice of accounting? Provide examples.…

    • 672 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Quiz 2

    • 592 Words
    • 4 Pages

    6. Specific performance is a limited remedy as it is only available for breach of contract to sell a unique item.…

    • 592 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).…

    • 498 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays