Defenses Available for Strict Liability Actions

The video tutorial discusses the application of contributory and comparative negligence in negligence cases, emphasizing that they are not defenses in strict liability actions. It explains that the negligence of the plaintiff can affect the damages awarded. Assumption of risk is highlighted as a defense in strict liability cases, requiring the plaintiff to have knowingly undertaken a recognized risk. The tutorial also covers how to demonstrate risk recognition, often through contracts. Additionally, it discusses product misuse as a defense, showing that a product is not unreasonably dangerous when used as intended.

Which of the following is NOT a defense in a strict liability action?

• Contributory negligence

• Misuse of product

• Comparative negligence

• Assumption of risk

What is required for the assumption of risk to be a valid defense in strict liability?

• The plaintiff must have been unaware of the risk.

• The plaintiff must have recognized and accepted the risk.

• The risk must be mentioned in a verbal agreement.

• The risk must be unforeseeable.

How can a plaintiff's acknowledgment of risk be demonstrated?

• By assuming the risk was minimal

• Through contracts or explicit acknowledgment

• By ignoring the risk

• Through verbal agreements only

In product liability actions, what can demonstrate that a product was not unreasonably dangerous?

• Ignoring safety warnings

• Misusing the product

• Using the product as intended

• Assuming the product is safe

What does misuse of a product indicate in a strict liability case?

• The product is defective

• The product was used as intended

• The product was dangerous only when misused

• The product is inherently dangerous