STRICT LIABILITY:

Strict Liability is a very limited theory of tort liability. It has nothing to do with negligence or intent. It applies to situations that are abnormally dangerous. This would include those who work with explosives, fireworks, radioactive materials, or own or control certain dangerous animals. If a person is injured by a defendant while engaged in these activities, liability is imposed regardless of a defendant’s intentions or lack of negligence. The law imposes liability as a matter of public policy. In NYS, strict liability even applies to products liability cases.

The New York’s Pattern Jury Instruction that defines strict products liability is Section 2:120 which states: “A (manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, processor of materials, maker of a component part) that sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury that results from use of the product when the product is used for its intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose. A product is defective if it is not reasonably safe — that is, if the product is so likely to be harmful to (persons, property) that a reasonable person who had actual knowledge of its potential for producing injury would conclude that it should not have been marketed in that condition.”

PRODUCTS LIABILITY:

Depending on the situation, a products liability claim in NYS may be based in negligence, intentional tort, strict liability, and even contract law for breach of warranties. It includes defects in condition, in manufacturing, in design, and for insufficient or inadequate warnings. The Liebeck v McDonald’s discussed above in the punitive damages section was a products liability case. One of the claims by the plaintiff Mrs. Liebeck was that the product, coffee, was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it was too hot, which was direct factor in causing her substantial injuries. The Liebeck v McDonald’s case was under the state of New Mexico law.

New York is a strict products liability state holding the seller, manufacturer, and others in the line of distribution of a defective consumer product, strictly liable when said defective product is a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff harm or injury because the product is not reasonably safe. While most courts throughout the country use the standard of an unreasonably dangerous product as set forth in the Restatement of Torts, Section 402A, New York does not.

The NY Court of Appeals in the Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Company 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983) established a lower standard for strict products liability ruling “In order to establish a prima facie case in strict products liability for design defects, the plaintiff must show that the manufacturer breached its duty to market safe products when it marketed a product designed so that it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury.” [59 N.Y.2d 108] The NYS standard is an advantage to a plaintiff because requiring that a jury find a product must be unreasonable safe implies to a jury that a product must somehow be extra hazardous. The standard of not being reasonable safe does not.

DOG BITE LAWSUITS AND STRICT LIABILITY:

According to a study by the Insurance Information Institute and State Farm in 2015, dog bites accounted for one third of all homeowner claims. The study found 880 claims for dog bites in NYS with the average damages award being about $44,000.

NYS does have strict liability for plaintiffs who are injured when bitten by a dog. However, plaintiffs in dog bite cases in NYS must prove that an owner had prior knowledge before the dog bit the plaintiff, of the dog’s vicious propensity. The New York Court of Appeals in the case of Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444 (2004) ruled that a jury is entitled to consider any evidence of vicious propensity with a prior bite being only one type of such evidence. The Court pointed out that vicious propensity can be proven by something less than an actual prior bites. The court gave examples such as a dog that growls, snaps, or bares its teeth could be evidence of vicious propensity. Other actions like jumping up on people and/or knocking people off their bicycles could be interpreted by a jury as vicious propensity.

The New York Pattern Jury Instruction 2:220 defines vicious propensity as “a natural inclination or usual habit to act in a way that endangers people or property”. The plaintiff also has to prove the dog owner knew, or should have known, of the vicious propensities. A dog owner is responsible for any injury on a strict liability basis if the owner continues to harbor the dog with knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities. The requirement of vicious propensity applies to other animals besides dogs. In NYS, there is no claim in negligence for dog bites.

There is also strict liability under the Section 121 of the Agricultural & Markets statute which makes the “owner or lawful custodian” of a “dangerous dog” “strictly liable” for medical costs resulting from “injury” caused by such dog to a person, “companion animal,” farm animal, or “domestic animal.”