Opinion ID: 532562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: strict liability and negligence

Text: 16 The jury sided with the plaintiff on the issues of strict liability and negligence. The record establishes that satisfactory evidence was presented to support a finding of strict liability on the defendant manufacturer. Defendant admits all of the following four tests must be passed by the plaintiff before strict liability is applicable under Louisiana law. 17 1. The valve was defective and unreasonably dangerous in normal use. 18 2. The defect existed when the valve was shipped by the valve manufacturer. 19 3. The valve was in normal or foreseeable use at the time of the accident. 20 4. The defect was the cause of the accident. 21 The plaintiff presented evidence by expert witnesses that the valve corroded, hung up and remained in an open and dangerous position. The tendency to corrode was inherent in the valve when it left the hands of the manufacturer, and that defect caused the accident. Defendant's expert acknowledged that the valve would be used with a manual or remote control and that the valve was sold with or without manual, as opposed to remote, operating accessories. Further, a manual operation could be converted to a remote operation. Again, we observe that there is evidence to the contrary on all of these issues but one fact is clear: convincing qualified testimony is in the record to support the jury determination on the issues of strict liability. Accordingly, since we affirm the strict liability conclusion, we need not consider the determination found on negligence.