Class 9 Announcements Today Review Quiz 3 Finish Notes for Part 2 of course Questions about Exam 2 Next class March 29 th Exam 2 S econd half of class Joe Barich 2018 2 ID: 724318
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Engineering Law Professor Barich" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Engineering Law
Professor Barich
Class 9Slide2
Announcements
Today
Review Quiz 3
Finish Notes for Part 2 of courseQuestions about Exam 2Next class – March 29th – Exam #2 Second half of class
© Joe Barich, 2018.
2Slide3
Summary -1
Torts are wrongs – breach of a civil duty that society says that you owe to another
Negligent Torts
Intentional TortsAssaultBatteryFalse ImprisonmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMany others© Joe Barich, 2018.3Slide4
Summary -2
Negligence
Conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect others from foreseeable risks of harm
Factors for negligence:Duty of CareBreach of the DutyProximate CauseDamages© Joe Barich, 2018.4Slide5
Summary -3
Defenses To Negligence
Assumption of Risk
You knew the risks and agreed to go forwardContributory Negligence - No recovery if D’s own negligence contributed to their injury in any wayComparative NegligenceD can still recover, but damages reduced due to their negligence.© Joe Barich, 2018.5Slide6
Summary - 4
Property Torts
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Chattels (personal property)Conversion – making land a chattel or vice versaReplevin - give it backTrover – pay me for it© Joe Barich, 2018.6Slide7
Fraud as a Tort - 1
We previously studied fraud with regard to contract formation
Makes the contract voidable by non-fraudulent party
Elements of fraud as a tort:Misrepresentation of existing fact Not future fact, not opinionMateriality of factFalsity Speaker's knows or should know of its falsity If Speaker believes it is true, it is not fraudSpeaker’s intent that P act on statement
© Joe Barich, 2018.
7Slide8
Fraud as a Tort - 2
P’s ignorance of falsity
If you know they are lying, it’s not fraud
P’s reliance on the truth of the representationIf they lie about something but it does not persuade you, it’s not fraudP’s right to rely upon itConsequent damages suffered by P © Joe Barich, 2018.
8Slide9
Many kinds of Fraud
Securities Fraud
“Pump and Dump”
Investment Fraud“Ponzi” schemes – MadoffIdentity TheftFalse billingFalse AdvertisingVolkswagen “Defeat Device”© Joe Barich, 2018.
9Slide10
Negligent Misrepresentation
It’s not fraud because you didn’t know it wasn’t true, but you had a duty to determine whether it was true or not and did not fulfill your duty
Existence of a duty
Breach of dutyInjuryDamagesWho has a duty? – usually only persons having special knowledge or skill, like engineers, doctors, lawyers – and then only in the course of their occupation© Joe Barich, 2018.10Slide11
Tortious Interference - 1
Wrongfully
interfering with someone else’s business or contracts
(some interference = OK)The existence of a contractual/business relationship between two parties. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. The contractual relationship is breached. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
© Joe Barich, 2018.
11Slide12
Tortious Interference – 2
Ex – Competitor knows of your contract with client and successfully persuades your client to break the contract with you.
Can sue client for breach of contract and sue competitor for tortious interference
Does not apply if client just decides not to renew a periodic contractNot just advertising or marketing – normal competition is privileged Not interference if Competitor just offers lower price and client breaches – must make directed effortPled a lot, but rarely awarded© Joe Barich, 2018.
12Slide13
False Advertising - 1
Use of false or improperly misleading statements in advertising
Elements of the tort of false advertising:
False, misleading, or deceptiveReasonable consumers must be confused or misled, or there must be a likelihoodFalse statements must be material Damages (not needed for statute, see below)False advertising started as a tort, but now can be prosecuted by state and/or federal agencies (like the FTC) OR by lawsuit from an aggrieved partyElements can vary between federal and state agencies and federal and state case law
© Joe Barich, 2018.
13Slide14
False Advertising - 2
Did you notice “False,
misleading
, or deceptive”?Higher standard than fraud or misrepresentationMisleading advertising is “false” - even if factually trueWe want to get a square deal for consumersHowever! Many things are not false advertising and often what you think you hear is not really what is being saidOpinion is not false advertising
“You will love our great crunchy taste!”Data must be accurate – “4 out of 5 …”
But can you just keep running surveys/studies until you get one you like?
© Joe Barich, 2018.
14Slide15
Not False Advertising - 3
“Up to 80% effective!” – only need a single instance, others may be as low as 10%?
Unregulated definitions
“Megabyte” = 220 (1,048,576) or 1,000,000?“Chocolate” (definition regulated by FDA) vs “chocolatey”, “chocolate tasting”, or “chocolate snack”Hershey’s asks FDA to change definition of chocolate to include vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter Previously “organic” and “light” FDA - "Light" or "Lite": if 50% or more of the calories are from fat, fat must be reduced by at least 50% per RACC. If less than 50% of calories are from fat, fat must be reduced at least 50% or calories reduced at least 1/3 per RACC - 21
CFR 101.56(b)
© Joe Barich, 2018.
15Slide16
Example – Can you spot the false advertising?
© Joe Barich, 2018.
16Slide17
TWC v. DirectTV
Time Warner Cable sues DirectTV for false advertising – did you catch it?
“You’re just not going to get the best picture without DirectTV.”
TWC says – literally false! HD is the sameDTV says – Mere puffery and we never mention you by nameCourt says – Statement is literally false and there are really only two players in market so TWC has been harmed. Ad can’t be shown.Parties settle© Joe Barich, 2018.17Slide18
© Joe Barich, 2018.
18Slide19
What did you hear?
According to the actor in the ad, has
any
doctor recommended 5-Hour ENERGY?NoAccording to the actor in the ad, has any doctor recommended using an energy supplement?No“Is 5-Hour ENERGY right for you? Ask your doctor. We already asked 3,000.” Implies that they asked if “5-Hour ENERGY was right for you” and 3,000 doctors said “yes”?Review printed portion of ad
© Joe Barich, 2018.
19Slide20
Products Liability - 1
Historically
Caveat Emptor – “Buyer Beware” – purchaser has responsibility for making sure that the good is what they want before they buy it
Why? Reasonable person should be able to tell when good is defectiveBut! Products become more complicated, defects less easily detectableExample – Reasonable person can tell if a broom is defective just by examining it, but not iPhone – how about gun barrel? © Joe Barich, 2018.20Slide21
Products Liability - 2
Trend arises to place more liability on manufacturer to make sure product is good
However! (Historically) Products liability
actions required “privity” – a direct connection between the manufacturer and consumerAddition of distributor destroyed privity because consumer is second buyer and only has connection with another buyer, not manufacturerRecent decades – great expansion of M liabilityNo more privityNo more assumption of good sense of consumer© Joe Barich, 2018.21Slide22
Products Liability - 3
Three general bases for liability over time:
Negligence - Previous legal theory (old)
Warranty - Previous legal theory (old)Strict Liability – Current legal theory (now)NegligenceM has duty to carefully design and produce productOne of the earlier theoriesOften defeated by contributory negligence of user/misuse © Joe Barich, 2018.22Slide23
Products Liability - 4
Warranty
Selling product includes implied warranties
Fitness for specific purposeMerchantability – won’t hurt customersHowever, implied warranties under the UCC really only extended to purchasing merchant, not to consumer© Joe Barich, 2018.23Slide24
Current Law - Strict Liability - 1
(1) One who sells any product in defective condition unreasonably dangerous to consumers is liable for physical harm if:
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such products, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the consumer in the condition in which it is sold(2) Applies even though (a) seller has exercised all possible care, and (b) user did not buy directly from seller“Fixes” issues with both negligence and warranty theories© Joe Barich, 2018.24Slide25
Strict Liability - 2
States have not implemented uniformly
Law continues to evolve
Relies on jury determination of “unreasonably dangerous”Recall “duty creep” – juries awarding more – “someone was injured, so someone must pay”Jury think: Someone was injured in order for the complaint to be filed, so doesn’t that say that the product was unreasonably dangerous?© Joe Barich, 2018.25Slide26
Defects
Strict Liability requires the product to be “defective”
Failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner
(1) Manufacturing Defects(2) Design Defects(3) Failures to warn/Marketing defects© Joe Barich, 2018.26Slide27
Manufacturing Defect
Product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in making the product
Even though you are trying your best, some defective products are going to get through quality control
Quality control is a cost issue – checking each product is much more expensive than checking each “batch”There are ALWAYS some defects in large product runsDesign to reduce manufacturing defects Fewer components Controlled sourcingTypically, only a small number of products implicated, not entire run
© Joe Barich, 2018.
27Slide28
Design Defect
Plaintiff shows there was a safer alternative design that:
(1) could have reduced the injury and
(2) was technologically and economically feasible at the timeNot just single product – the entire design is defective (all products produced)Ex. Grimshaw v. Ford - Ford Pinto – gas tank design fails in a crash and causes fire due to lack of $6 part$2.5M comp and $3.5M punitiveM may want to settle rather than risk a court finding that all of the products are defective due to defective design© Joe Barich, 2018.
28Slide29
Failure To Warn
If product is inherently dangerous, then manufacturer has a duty to warn
Recall that we would not have a lawsuit unless someone has been injured – which might make the product look dangerous
Lots of variance state to state, especially with misuse and foreseeability because they are based on jury determinationsSource of those crazy warnings - “Do not place plastic bag over head” Ties in with Misuse (later) – Often a “get out of liability free card” for the specific warnings because they would constitute misuse© Joe Barich, 2018.
29Slide30
Product Liability Defenses - 1
Product Alteration
Consumer messed with it, so manufacturer can’t be held liable
Assumption of RiskConsumer knew risks and took them anywayBest practice to get waiverUnavoidably unsafe productProperly uses “state-of-the-art technology”We can’t make it completely safe, but it is as safe as the state-of-the-art will allowEx. Lawnmowers, ladders© Joe Barich, 2018.
30Slide31
Product Liability Defenses - 2
Standards
Government made the standard and we follow it
May feed into unavoidably unsafe defense“They told us to make it this way.” Plaintiff’s negligenceTypically comparative as opposed to contributory negligenceReduce damage award in proportion to plaintiff’s negligenceMisuse© Joe Barich, 2018.31Slide32
Misuse
What constitutes misuse?
Use of a product in a way not intended or foreseeable by M
Use of product by unforeseen or unintended person (skilled professional vs. non-pro)Using product contrary to warningsRemember – this question will be decided by a jury – and someone has been injuredQuestion – What if QTips packaging reads “not for insertion into ear”?© Joe Barich, 2018.32Slide33
Questions?
Next class –
March 29
th – Exam #2 Second half of class© Joe Barich, 2018.33