Please reply to peer post.

The difference between proximate and actual cause is that proximate covers possible other causes that contributed to any damages. The difference here is how closely the cause relates to what instance caused damages or harm. An intervening cause is an action or inaction often done to help the client but results in damages or harm instead. The effect of having an intervening cause is that negligence caused the issue to arise, and the defendant would be whoever had been at fault for that. This adjustment would change a case depending on the circumstances.

Strict liability for every product may be complex or create a fearful commerce environment. If followed correctly, though, liability cases would not be needed as long as all products are safe, properly labeled, and sufficiently designed. Setting the liability standard to fall on the producer would benefit consumers in the long run. Still, the governing body on what meets safety standards could gain more power to stonewall development. The question of what would happen then, I think, would be logically discounted if a person is seeking to harm themselves or modify products. Then, that often waives the liability of the producer.

I found that the UCC does not set standards or limitations for strict liability but that physical harm must be present for strict liability to be used in court. The UCC uses warranty law to cover some liability cases, and courts have found that it does not sufficiently protect consumers. The second restatement of torts can adequately protect consumers under the rule of negligence.