Peter Vamos purchased a sealed bottle of Diet Coke at a grocery store. After Vam
ID: 462692 • Letter: P
Question
Peter Vamos purchased a sealed bottle of Diet Coke at a grocery store. After Vamos opened and drank from the bottle, he discovered that it contained two AA batteries. Vamos sued the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, which bottled the liquid Vamos drank. At trial, Vamos testified that he became ill for several days after drinking from the bottle. However, there was no evidence that the liquid Vamos drank was actually poisonous or noxious.
Answer the following questions in the space provided below:
1. Under which product liability theory should Vamos sue, the implied warranty of merchantability or implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose? Explain.
2. Can the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York be liable to Vamos under the implied warranty of merchantability if the liquid in fact was harmless? Explain.
3. What would be the result if the court used the foreign-natural test? Explain.
4. What would be the result if the court used the reasonable consumer expectations test? Explain.
Explanation / Answer
1. Under which product liability theory should Vamos sue, the implied warranty of merchantability or implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose? Explain.
Under Strict Product Liability theory Vamos sue, the implied warranty of merchantability or implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose because Plaintiff Must Prove Three Elements
1. Defendant sold a product in a defective condition, and food was unwholesome
2. Plaintiff was injured;
3. The injury was caused by the defect
Under the common law approach of privity, an injured plaintiff can only sue a defendant for breach of warranty if the plaintiff and defendant are in privity, means that they are both parties to the same contract. If Vamos purchases a product directly from the Coca-Cola, he will be able to sue for breach of warranty if he is injured, because the buyer and the manufacturer were both parties to the sales contract. But in this case he buys a diet coke from a grocery store, so he may not be able to sue the manufacturer for breach of warranty because the manufacturer was not involved in that sale under the common law approach of privity.
2. Can the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York be liable to Vamos under the implied warranty of merchantability if the liquid in fact was harmless? Explain.
Yes, Coca Cola Company is liable to Vamos under the implied warranty of merchantability if the liquid was harmless because an injured plaintiff can sue a defendant for breach of warranty. An item of food or drink intended for human consumption is sold; an implied warranty is imposed on the manufacturer that the item is fit for human consumption and free from any harmful or unwholesome substances, when it leaves the manufacturer's control. Liability may also be established against a manufacturer of a food product on the basis of negligence. A manufacturer is under a duty adequately to prepare, inspect and package its food product and failure to take these precautions constitutes negligence. The law has recognized that the concept of unfit food or drink encompasses not only products that are physically unsafe, but also products that are subject to social and psychological taboos.
3. What would be the result if the court used the foreign-natural test? Explain.
If the court used the foreign-natural test then under this test, the inquiry is whether the object that caused the consumer’s injury is natural to one or more of the ingredients of the food without regard to the fact that the object would not ordinarily be intended to be part of the finished product. If the object is natural in that respect, the defendant is entitled to summary disposition
4. What would be the result if the court used the reasonable consumer expectations test? Explain
If the court used the reasonable consumer expectations test it will establish the fact and it is test regarding natural substances in food which cause injury to consumers. Naturalness in the sense that nothing that is an inherent part of the raw product itself can be a legal defect, they do not hold water if it is not inherent part of the product. This is the better test of what is legally defective appears to what consumers customarily expect and guard against by the law.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.