Practice question
A consumer product placed on the market by its manufacturer injures a consumer. The manufacturer proves under Article 97 that the consumer’s own conduct was solely at fault and caused the damage; no defect-related concurrent cause is established. The claimant says “strict liability” makes that finding irrelevant. Which answer follows the statute?
- Strict liability removes every express statutory defense.
- The manufacturer must pay automatically for any injury near the product.
- Consumer fault can never matter under Article 97.
- Article 97 expressly recognizes sole fault of the consumer or a third party as an exonerating basis when established.
- The consumer automatically receives the manufacturer’s entire factory.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 2183 and 2185.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/nov1989/gr_74431_1989.html — Vestil v Intermediate Appellate Court, GR 74431, November 6 1989, main opinion: animal possession, no negligence basis, and causation.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7394_1992.html — RA 7394, article97: defective-product liability independently of fault and specified defenses.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.