Strict product liability generally focuses on the product itself, not the negligent conduct of the defendant, and as a result, defendants often are precluded from relying on certain negligence concepts in defending strict liability actions. A plaintiff's comparative fault or contributory negligence, for example, generally may not be used to excuse a product's defects or reduce a defendant's fault. A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania makes clear, however, that evidence of a plaintiff's negligent conduct may be admissible in a strict product liability case under limited circumstances. Dodson v. Beijing Capital Tire Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158484, at *8-13 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 27, 2017). Because such evidence can be powerful in defending these types of actions, it is important to understand when and why it may be admissible.
Posts tagged "contributory negligence"
Subscribe To This Blog's Feed
- Employer Awareness of Implicit Gender Bias in the Workplace
- When it Comes to Retaliation, Timing Isn't Everything - Third Circuit Reinforces that Temporal Proximity Must be Considered with Other Evidence of Causation
- Are You Prepared for a Religious Accommodation Request? Third Circuit Finds Employer's Approach Proper
- Supreme Court of PA Holds That an Increase in UIM Coverage Requires Auto Insurers to Offer Opportunity to Waive Stacking