ABSTRACT
The rationale for adopting strict products liability was to relieve plaintiff of the need to show that defendant acted with an absence of due care. In strict products liability, plaintiff need not show that defendant's conduct was deficient in some way, or that defendant acted without due care under the circumstances, that is, that defendant was negligent. Strict liability for the sale or marketing of unreasonably dangerous products is a fairly recent theory of legal remedy. To recover in strict products liability, plaintiff must show that defendant manufactured, sold, or marketed the product; that the product was in an unreasonably dangerous, defective condition. It also shows that plaintiff purchased or was exposed to the product when it was in substantially the same condition as it was upon leaving the control of defendant; and that plaintiff suffered injury to their person or to their property due to the defective condition of the product.
