Hammontree V Jenner
Hammontree V Jenner
Hammontree V Jenner
Cannot superimpose absolute liability of products liability cases upon drivers under these
circumstance- apply to manufacturer, retailers, and distributors of products
to invoke a rule of strict liability on users of the streets and highwayswould only
contribute to confusion to the automobile accident problem
CLASS NOTES
Hypos:
Rules and Elements:
Rationales:
Think about the social policy implications of tort rules- what will this do to people with
disabilities- limit them from engaging in every day activities. On other hand, most people
are not BORN with disabilities, but became disabled as a result of an accident. So maybe
this is a good thing for community?
Nuggets:
See page 16. The other spouse can bring claim that the relationship has been damaged
because of injury. Consortium: marital alliance between husband and wife and their
respective right to each others support, cooperation, aid and companionship.
Other Notes from Professor:
This case is about the difference between negligence and strict liability
Intent: acting with a purpose to harm
Precedents in this case: incapacitation resulting in loss of control. P wants to say the
precedents are not like my case! Our D was AWARE of his condition. Argued by analogy
to products liability asking court to change the law. Compares those with disabilities to
having a defect.
Court reasons that businesses are different than individuals because businesses are
profiting by activity- they can also raise price of goods
Move to categorize auto accidents as strict liability has not been successful