2026 Securities Licensing Study Guides (SIE, Series 7 & Series 66) are now live
Chapter 2: Contracts & TortsLesson 2.4

2.4 Strict Products Liability, Intentional Torts & Defamation

Synthesize design defect claims under the Restatement (Third) risk-utility and reasonable alternative design tests, battery and transferred intent, the New York Times actual malice standard for public officials, and employer respondeat superior scope.

🎯 Essential Doctrinal Takeaways

  • Under Restatement (Third) Products § 2(b), design defect claims require proof that a reasonable alternative design (RAD) could have reduced risk.
  • Under the transferred intent doctrine, intending an intentional tort against one person transfers to establish battery if another person is struck.
  • Public officials must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) by clear and convincing evidence to recover for defamation.
  • Under respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for employee torts during detours (minor deviations), but not frolics.

Strict products liability imposes liability on commercial manufacturers and distributors of defective products without regard to fault. Under Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2, defects are categorized into manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn. Design defects are evaluated under a risk-utility balancing test requiring proof of a reasonable alternative design (RAD).

Intentional torts require intent, act, and harm. Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, an actor who intends an assault or battery against person A is fully liable for battery if the projectile unexpectedly strikes person B.

Constitutional defamation standards balance reputation against free expression. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), public officials and public figures must prove 'actual malice' with convincing clarity (clear and convincing evidence)—demonstrating that the publisher knew the statement was false or entertained serious doubts as to its truth.

⚠️ NextGen Bar Examination Traps & Pitfalls

  • Believing design defect claims can succeed without expert evidence of a feasible, cost-effective reasonable alternative design.
  • Confusing assault (apprehension of imminent contact) with battery (actual harmful or offensive contact).
  • Equating First Amendment actual malice with common law malice (ill will, hatred, or spite).

Interactive Knowledge Checkpoint

Knowledge Checkpoint • Section 2.4

A homeowner operates a newly purchased commercial-grade lawnmower manufactured by an equipment corporation. While mowing on a slight incline, the mower tips backwards, and the homeowner's foot slips under the blade housing, resulting in partial foot amputation. In a strict products liability lawsuit alleging a design defect, the homeowner introduces expert testimony demonstrating that an alternative interlock safety guard costing $12 to manufacture was commercially available, would have completely prevented the foot from reaching the blade, and would not have impaired the mower's cutting utility. Which test governs the design defect claim?