1. Abby received a drill manufactured by Fine Tools Corp. for her birthday. Abby
ID: 453049 • Letter: 1
Question
1. Abby received a drill manufactured by Fine Tools Corp. for her birthday. Abby was injured while using the drill when her hand slipped and was cut by the saw blade. Abby sued Fine under strict product liability arguing that the drill was defective because it did not adequately warn of the dangers of using a drill.
If Fine wins the lawsuit, determine the likely rationale for the decision.
a.Abby’s injury resulted from Abby’s own actions and not from a defect in the drill.
b.Fine did not sell the drill to Abby, thus, there was no privity of contract between Abby and Fine.
c.Strict product liability does not apply to this case; Abby should have sued under ordinary strict liability because drills are inherently dangerous items.
d.Failure to warn is not applicable in this case because drills are not inherently dangerous products.
Explanation / Answer
c. Strict product liability does not apply to this case; Abby should have sued under ordinary strict liability because drills are inherently dangerous items.
strict product liability is a legal rule that says a seller, distributor or manufacturer of a defective product is liable to a person injured by that product regardless of whether the defendant did everything possible to make sure the defect never happened.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.