Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)

Citation: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Parent Document: Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1985-04-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1172788/becker-v-irm-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,444 chars

One Court of Appeal recently undertook an extensive review of strict liability in the context of sellers of used machinery which “they neither inspected, repaired nor modified.” (LaRosa v. Superior Court, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d 741, 743.) It reviewed five “policy predicates” for strict liability described in Note, Sales of Defective Used Products: Should Strict Liability Apply? (1979) 52 So.Cal.L.Rev. 805, namely, (1) enterprise liability (forcing the enterprise to bear costs of injuries caused by its defective products); (2) deterrence; (3) risk distribution; (4) practicality (problems of proof made easier by application of strict liability) and (5) implied representations of safety because product is present on the market. (122 Cal.App.3d at pp. 756-760.) The Court of Appeal found that as to the risk-distribution rationale, so heavily relied upon here by the majority, “the very pervasiveness of the . . . rationale suggests that it is probably insufficient, by itself, to justify strict liability.” (122 Cal.App.3d at p. 759.) As to diminishing problems of proof, the court observed “ease of recovery is not really a rationale for strict liability; more precisely it describes the effect strict liability was expected to have. Obviously if ease of recovery were a pervasive rationale for strict liability then strict liability would be the universal rule. ” (Id. at p. 760.) These conclusions have validity in our context as well.

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text