Baxter manufactures electric hair dryers. Julie purchases a Baxter dryer from he

Question

Baxter manufactures electric hair dryers. Julie purchases a Baxter dryer from her local Ace Drugstore. Cox, a friend and a guest in Julie's home, has taken a shower and wants to dry her hair. Julie tells Cox to use the new Baxter hair dryer that she has just purchased. As Cox plugs in the dryer, sparks fly out from the motor, and sparks continue to fly as she operates it. Despite this, Cox begins drying her hair. Suddenly, the entire dryer ignites into flames, severely burning Cox's scalp. Cox sues Baxter on the basis of negligence and strict liability in tort. Baxter admits the dryer was defective but denies liability, particularly because Cox was not the person who purchased the dryer. In other words, Cox had no contractual relationship with Baxter. a. Is Baxter's defense valid? Explain why or why not. b. Are there any other defenses that Baxter might assert to avoid liability? Explain each defense.

Explanation / Answer

a) No Baxters defence is not valid. Common law imposes on manufacturer a liability of damage caused to anyone who comes in contact with the product, irrespective of the purchaser or not. Unlike contract law, common law is wider in application and is not limited to the purchaser of the product

b) Yes, Bexter does have some defences available

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse B
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.