Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

strict products liability

Read a random definition: but cf.

A quick definition of strict products liability:

Strict products liability is when a company is responsible for any harm caused by a defective product they made or sold. This means that if someone is hurt by a product that was not made correctly, the company that made or sold it can be held responsible. To prove strict products liability, the person who was hurt must show that the product was dangerous, that the company was in the business of selling products, that the product was defective, and that the defect caused the injury. This is a way to make sure that companies are careful when making and selling products so that people are safe when using them.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Strict products liability is a legal theory that holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for any damages or injuries caused by a defective product. This liability can be based on negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability.

Example: If a person buys a toaster and it malfunctions, causing a fire that damages their home, the manufacturer of the toaster can be held strictly liable for the damages. The buyer does not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent or breached a warranty, only that the product was defective and caused the damage.

This example illustrates how strict products liability works. The manufacturer is held responsible for the defective product, regardless of whether they were negligent or not. This helps protect consumers from harm caused by faulty products and encourages manufacturers to ensure their products are safe.

stricto jure | strict settlement

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.