Question

1. Do you think that any causes of action should be strict liability? Why or why not?

2. Do you think that criminal penalties to anticompetitive behaviors are fair? Why or why not?

3. Do you think society minimizes the theft of intellectual property as opposed to more tangible or other types of goods?

Answer 1

Answer:

1)  Do you think that any causes of action should be a strict liability?

Strict liability is a theory that imposes legal responsibility for damages or injuries even if the person who was found strictly liable did not act with fault or negligence. This theory usually applies in three types of situations: animal bites (in certain states), manufacturing defects, and abnormally dangerous activities.

Common defences to claims of strict liability are an assumption of risk, the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, and federal preemption. An assumption of risk requires the defendant to prove that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk created by a particular condition, usually a defective product, and the plaintiff voluntarily assumed that risk. For example, if a plaintiff knows that someone stores explosives in his apartment and visits anyway, the defendant may have a strong defence that he assumed the risk.

In general, most states have a statute of limitations that requires action be brought within a specific period of time after the victim discovered or should have discovered his or her injuries. In some states, there is also a statute of repose, which mandates an absolute limit on the time within which an action should be brought, regardless of when the injury was discovered. In some states, in product defect lawsuits, a manufacturer that complied with federal safety regulations may be able to avoid liability under state product liability law.

Once a plaintiff proves a strict liability personal injury claim, a defendant is pretty much on the hook for the damages, regardless of their disclaimers. Disclaimers and waivers of liability for products are often invalidated by courts as against public policy (courts should not condone the manufacture and distribution of defective products) and warranties are typically limited so that manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for personal injuries caused by the use of the product.

*As per the Chegg policy give you answer, for other, post separately, thank you & rate.