In most personal injury cases, the responsible party must have demonstrated some level of negligence. Still, there are some personal injury cases in which proof of negligence is not necessary.
Featured changes in the exceptions
A plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant violated a standard of care.
The law places this burden on the defendant: strict liability for injuries.One element of the traditional personal injury case that has not been changed. The law demands proof that the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer some degree of harm.
The legal system’s perception of defendant, as someone that must bear the burden associated with strict liability. Injury Lawyer in Mississauga needs to see if the defendant’s actions were inherently dangerous and unreasonable.
Examples of actions that are inherently dangerous
Someone decides to keep dangerous animals penned up in his or her backyard. These are animals that belong in the zoo. No plan has been put in place for going after an animal, if it happens to get loose.
Someone decides to store fireworks supplies in his or her own garage. Those supplies hold chemicals that are much like the chemicals in the warehouse in Beirut. Think about what happened at that warehouse.
Nothing happened for years, and then there was a fire in a nearby building. The heat from the fire caused the stored supplies to explode. The explosion caused destruction over a wide area.
Details on an action that is inherently unreasonable
A manufacturer can be charged with strict liability if he has made a product that is defective and dangerous. In the eyes of the law, there is no logical reason for the production of such an item. A manufacturer would not be acting in a reasonable manner, if he expected others to help him market and sell such an item.
Like so many legal regulations, this one comes with an exception. The regulation applies to only those products that get used according to the directions, or get used, just after their removal from a box or other container.
Suppose that a customer buys the defective product and then tampers with it before using it. Suppose that the tampering alters the defective item. If that fact can be shown, then the manufacturer could not be hit with strict liability, even if the same customer were to become injured.
Alternatively, suppose that a customer buys the defective product and does not bother to read the instructions. As a result, the manufacture’s product does not get used in the way that the manufacturer had intended.
If a defective item gets misused, the user cannot sue the manufacturer, even if that same user were to get injured. That allows for an exception.