Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
The Merger of Comparative Fault Principles with Strict Liability in Utah: Mulherin v. Ingersoll-Rand Co
Ist Teil von
Brigham Young University law review, 1981-10, Vol.1981 (4), p.964
Ort / Verlag
Provo: Brigham Young University, Reuben Clark Law School
Erscheinungsjahr
1981
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
EZB Electronic Journals Library
Beschreibungen/Notizen
In Mulherin v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., a 1981 case, the Utah Supreme Court determined that logic did not prevent the application of comparative fault principles to a case in which there is a combination of product defect and user fault. The case involved facts which the jury concluded showed a defective design of a mining winch, as well as misuse of the winch by the plaintiff. The trial court held that the misuse defense was a complete bar to recovery in strict liability. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, adopting pure comparative fault in cases of strict products liability. One argument against the merger accomplished in this case is that strict liability arises from an area of law in which fault is simply not a consideration. This is disposed of by seeing the common link as being simultaneous proximate causation. Fairness prevails over logic. However, the Mulherin language is imprecise. This endangers strict liability. The court should precisely specify that fault and only fault is the basis of comparison. Juror confusion is another potential problem. Future decisions should provide greater clarity, as well as explain whether extension to unreasonable use or assumed risk is to be made.