Return to Table of Contents

V. Strict Liability Claims

Under the doctrine of strict liability, a person can be found liable without a finding of negligence. The Alaska Supreme Court has not applied strict liability to the sale of a home or real estate, but has applied strict liability to sales of a mobile home and building products. Heritage v. Pioneer Brokerage & Sales, Inc., 604 P.2d 1059, 1061 (Alaska, 1979); D.G. Shelter Products Co. v. Moduline Industries, Inc., 684 P.2d 839 (Alaska 1984).

A product may be defective due to defective design, manufacturing defect, or the failure to contain adequate warnings. Shanks v. Upjohn Co., 835 P.2d 1189 (Alaska 1992). Plaintiff must prove that the defect proximately caused plaintiff's injury. Prince v. Parachutes, Inc., 685 P.2d 83 (Alaska 1984).

Alaska has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, with some exceptions. Saddler v. Alaska Marine Lines, Inc., 856 P.2d 784 (Alaska 1993). One exception is that Alaska has rejected the requirement that the product be unreasonably dangerous. Saddler at 787. Alaska applies strict products liability to sellers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and distributors. Id. However, it does not apply to the provision of services. Id.

As explained below, strict liability does not apply in cases of purely economic loss. The rule in Alaska is: "When a defective product creates a situation potentially dangerous to persons or other property, and loss occurs as a result of that danger, strict liability in tort is an appropriate theory of recovery, even though the damage is confined to the product itself. In order to recover on such a theory plaintiff must show (1) that the loss was a proximate result of the dangerous defect and (2) that the loss occurred under the kind of circumstances that made the product a basis for strict liability." Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173 (Alaska 1993).