Scribd
Upload
21 views1 page

Law 4 Pro

Products can be found liable if injury was reasonably foreseeable. Manufacturers must warn of dangers through labeling and instructions. One case found no liability when instructions were clear but not followed. Economic losses alone typically do not result in liability without physical injury or damage. Time limits exist to sue in both tort and contract cases. In civil cases, the burden is to prove the case on a balance of probabilities while criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Experts can provide opinions in their areas of expertise in court.

Uploaded by

kevin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views1 page

Law 4 Pro

Products can be found liable if injury was reasonably foreseeable. Manufacturers must warn of dangers through labeling and instructions. One case found no liability when instructions were clear but not followed. Economic losses alone typically do not result in liability without physical injury or damage. Time limits exist to sue in both tort and contract cases. In civil cases, the burden is to prove the case on a balance of probabilities while criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Experts can provide opinions in their areas of expertise in court.

Uploaded by

kevin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Products Liability

Wherever it can be established that injury ought reasonably to have been foreseen in any particular
circumstances, a potential for products liability arises.

Standard of Care and Duty to Warn


Risk of injury is inherent in some products. A manufacturer must warn the consumer of any dangerous
potential of the product by appropriate labeling.

George Ho Lem v. Barotto Sports Ltd. And Ponsness-Warren, Inc. A man was injured by use of a shot-
reloading device. He sued the manufacturer, but lost the case, because he was given simple, clear
instructions, and didn’t follow them. The manufacturer is not guilty for all injury resulting from use of
their product, if the product is not used in a responsible manner.

Economic Loss
In products-liability matters there was a reluctance to extend liability for negligence to economic losses in
the absence of actual physical injury.

One can sue for economic loss, but only in the case where injury or physical damage of assets occurs. One
can sometimes successfully sue for economic loss due to lost time.

Other Relevant Torts


1. the tort of defamation, which is further divided into two classifications: libel and slander. The
reputation of the plaintiff is damaged by untrue statements publicly made by the defendant. If the
untrue statements are made in writing, the tort is referred to as “libel”; if the untrue statements are
verbal, the tort is referred to as “slander.” If the statements that damage a reputation are true, no
liability arises.
2. occupier’s liability. The occupier of property must exercise the required standard o fcare to ensure
the safety of individuals coming onto that property. A duty of care extends to trespassers,
although trespassers are not accorded a standard of care as are those coming onto the property for
business reasons or as guests.
3. the tort of nuisance, designed to alleviate undue interference with the comfortable and convenient
enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land.

Chapter Five: Limitation Periods


For tort actions, there is a time limit in which one can sue. The prescribed period generally is six years
from the “time the cause of action arose” (when the damages were first detected).

In contract, unless the contract expressly limits the time period, the prescribed limitation period is generally
six years (after the breach of duty) but is extended to twenty years where the contract is signed under seal.
An action commencing after the prescribed period is said to be “statute barred.”

Chapter Six: Proof


The Burden of Proof
Two degrees of proof exist; for non-criminal (civil) proceedings (the most common type for engineers to be
involved in), such as actions in tort or contract, the plaintiff must generally prove the case against the
defendant by persuading the court on a “balance of probabilities” that the facts are as the plaintiff alleges
them, and that the defendant should be held liable.

In certain criminal proceedings, the plaintiff must prove to the court that the accused person is guilty
“beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, the degree of proof required is higher in the case of a criminal case.

Engineers as Expert Witnesses


The expert is permitted to express opinions with respect to his area of expertise.

You might also like