Ford loses $31M on Bronco rollover verdict...
11-10-2006, 01:11 AM
#41
One on the right for me
^ - that is why a lot of states have contributory negligence. Usually a jury will state the full judgment and then award damages to the plaintiff for the portion they were not at fault for.
Different from state to state
Greatly different from European tort law
Different from state to state
Greatly different from European tort law
11-10-2006, 07:57 PM
#43
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by subinf
^ - that is why a lot of states have contributory negligence. Usually a jury will state the full judgment and then award damages to the plaintiff for the portion they were not at fault for.
Different from state to state
Greatly different from European tort law
Different from state to state
Greatly different from European tort law
11-10-2006, 08:11 PM
#44
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by SpeedyV6
In this case I suspect that jury held that Ford was strictly liable, because, in their estimiation, Ford had created an "ultra-hazardous" product.
I havent looked into the SC law at all but I would think that if the jury were allowed to judge fault, I would guess that if they found the driver 50 percent or greater then that would be a total bar to recovery - anything less goes all on Ford. Don't think that would be quite the strict liability.
11-10-2006, 08:47 PM
#45
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by subinf
I havent looked into the SC law at all but I would think that if the jury were allowed to judge fault, I would guess that if they found the driver 50 percent or greater then that would be a total bar to recovery - anything less goes all on Ford. Don't think that would be quite the strict liability.
Strict liability
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by their acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.
Tort law
The plaintiff needs only to prove that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures.
Strict liability is sometimes called absolute liability to distinguish those situations where, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault.
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center; no matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.
The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous....
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by their acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.
Tort law
The plaintiff needs only to prove that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures.
Strict liability is sometimes called absolute liability to distinguish those situations where, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault.
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center; no matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.
The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous....
11-11-2006, 02:41 AM
#46
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by SpeedyV6
I don't think they would have assessed penalties of $31M against Ford unless they held that strict liability applied:
If applicable, strict liability exempts the plaintiff from a test of contributory negligence. That's almost certainly why the penalty was so high.
If applicable, strict liability exempts the plaintiff from a test of contributory negligence. That's almost certainly why the penalty was so high.
Looking up the general definition does nothing. Its based on state tort law, wiki sounds pretty, but state law controls.
11-12-2006, 02:42 PM
#47
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western New York
Age: 64
Posts: 25,151
Received 7,108 Likes
on
3,613 Posts
the principles of strict liability are universal across the board, for all states. the way the states apply the principle may be different, but not by much.
11-12-2006, 02:51 PM
#48
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western New York
Age: 64
Posts: 25,151
Received 7,108 Likes
on
3,613 Posts
the principles of strict liability are universal across the board, for all states. the way the states apply the principle may be different, but not by much. A jury verdict form is given to the jury. In any lawsuit you have a question of negligence (was the deft negligent); if yes, the next question is was the deft's negligence a substantial factor in causing some or all of the plaintiff's injuries; if yes, past/future pain&suffering; lost wages; medical expenses, etc. That figure is offset by the the amount of the plaintiff's culpability (Was the plaintiff responsible for any percentage of fault for the injuries sustained-the number must equal 100%). This last assignment of culpability (responsibility) is where factors such as no seatbelt was worn, speeding, knew of the problem, saw the ice on the sidewalk, was walking backwards and tripped over something, etc comes in.
To first determine negligence, the jury is read, usually, the law of negligence, then strict liability, breach of warranty, etc. Using those laws as determined by the state, the jury applies the facts to those set of laws to determine first, whether the deft has done something beyond an accident ("the failure to use reasonable care under the circumstances")
To first determine negligence, the jury is read, usually, the law of negligence, then strict liability, breach of warranty, etc. Using those laws as determined by the state, the jury applies the facts to those set of laws to determine first, whether the deft has done something beyond an accident ("the failure to use reasonable care under the circumstances")
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jterp7
3G MDX (2014-2020)
9
02-03-2016 08:34 PM
CheeseyPoofs McNut
5G TLX (2015-2020)
35
10-11-2015 11:25 AM
us285126
3G TL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
9
10-02-2015 02:03 PM
