Strict tort liability applies to non-profit distributors of defective products

Evidence

Defendant implicitly raises the ad terrorem argument that allowing a strict tort liability theory to obtain in this case will “open the flood gates” to disastrous litigation which will ultimately thwart the fulfillment of the hospitals’ worthy mission by drainage of their funds for purposes other than those intended. Our answer to this contention is that (paraphrasing what we observed [before]) we do not believe in this present day and age, when the operation of eleemosynary hospitals constitutes one of the biggest businesses in this country, that hospital immunity can be justified on the protection-of-the-funds theory. The concept of strict liability in tort logically, and we think, reasonably, dictates that an entity which distributes a defective product for human consumption, whether for profit or not, should legally bear the consequences of injury caused thereby, rather than allowing such loss to fall upon the individual consumer who is entirely without fault. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1074

Categorization

• XREF: This is the floodgates argument and protection-of-funds theory rejection, which the reader will meet in many torts and negligence cases; also connects to charitable immunity doctrine. — connects to: Public policy requires manufacturers to bear strict liability for defective products. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 617; A product’s defective design creates liability even when built to specifications. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3451; Courts should not let rate adequacy dictate negligence liability for utilities — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2362
• SEED: The floodgates argument recurs across tort law — a possible essay on how courts repeatedly reject it.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1074