Question

Under the modern theory of "strict product liability", the plaintiff need only prove that the product was defective when he bought it, that the defect made the product dangerous, and that the defect was the actual cause and proximate cause of his injury. True or false?

Answer 1

True, under strict product liability, a plaintiff only needs to prove that a product was defective and caused injury. Manufacturers can be culpable if they sell products knowing they are defective. The FTC monitors product claims, but buyers are also expected to be cautious.

Step-by-step explanation:

True, in the context of strict product liability, the plaintiff does indeed only need to prove that the product was defective at the time of purchase, the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, and the defect directly caused their injury (actual and proximate cause). In the given counter-example situation, the automobile manufacturer would be held liable for the injuries and deaths because they had knowledge of the defect in the brake system prior to the sale, and they proceeded with production and sale despite the likelihood of brake failure leading to injuries or deaths. This aligns with the principles of strict product liability, where a seller is held liable regardless of whether they exercised care or not, if their product is found defective and causes harm. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plays a role in checking factual claims about product performance, and false facts in advertising are not allowed. However, the principle of 'Caveat emptor' or 'let the buyer beware' still emphasizes the buyer's responsibility to be cautious. Consequently, manufacturers are expected to be transparent and prevent known defects from causing harm, further enforcing the strict product liability doctrine.