SYNOPSIS: Defendant automobile manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment
ID: 415431 • Letter: S
Question
SYNOPSIS: Defendant automobile manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 56(c) in plaintiff's action for recovery under strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness after plaintiff became locked in her automobile trunk. OVERVIEW: -Plaintiff became locked inside her automobile trunk, where she remained for some nine days. -Plaintiff contended that the automobile had a design defect in that the trunk lock did not have an internal release. -Plaintiff also maintained that defendant was liable based on failure to warn of the condition. -Plaintiff sought recovery under strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. -Defendant moved for summary judgment. -The court granted defendant's motion when the court found that the purposes of a trunk were to transport and secure goods to protect those items from weather. ANALYSIS: The court held that plaintiff's use of the trunk as a means to attempt suicide was an unforeseeable use as a matter of law and therefore defendant had no duty to design an internal release or a duty to warn plaintiff of the risk. RULES: -Under strict product liability or negligence, a manufacturer has a duty to consider only those risks of injury which are foreseeable. -A risk is not foreseeable by a manufacturer where a product is used in a manner which could not reasonably be anticipated by the manufacturer and that use is the cause of the plaintiff's injury. OUTCOME: The court granted defendant automobile manufacturer's motion for summary judgment when the court found that the automobile trunk was not defective since plaintiff's use of the trunk was to commit suicide as opposed to a foreseeable use by an ordinary consumer. A. How and why could PI face risks under product liability for reselling Naturals paint products to clients for whom PI is completing a residential painting job? B. How and why could PI face risks under product liability for reselling Naturals paint products over the internet?
Explanation / Answer
A. According to the product liability act, the manufacturers are responsible for providing the proactive information about the risks associated with the products so that it may not cause any harm for the users. When considering the reselling the natural paint products, the organization PI should also be aware about the pros and cons of the products. It should provide warning about the risk associated with it to the consumers to whom the product is being resold. It should also highlight how effectively the product can be used so that the consumers can use it effectively. The organization PI can be sued under the product liability act if they failed to provide such warnings.
B. Similarly in the case, if the organization PI resells the products through internet also the same situation would be reflected. They have to provide the manual guide to use the paint appropriately so that the consumer can gain benefit as per the advertisements.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.