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.

What is the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence?

How does the negligence of the plaintiff affect the award in a strict liability action?

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

In what ways can a plaintiff demonstrate that they recognized the risk they were undertaking?

How can misusing a product serve as a defense to a strict liability action?