It was a wet and nasty spring in upstate New York, and that combined with the preceding
Question:
A car manufacturer (ACME) manufactured the cab and chassis (flat-bed, wheels, axle, etc.) of a truck that was sold to Keefer Motors (KM). The truck sat on the lot of Keefer Motors for two days and then was sold unchanged to the city of Albany. Neither ACME nor KM discussed with the city what the city would do with the truck. The city then took the truck to Susan's Truck Equipment Co. (STE), a manufacturer of add on items necessary to convert generic trucks for specific uses. STE manufactured a dump bed and hoist that was sold to the city of Albany and, then installed the dump bed and hoist on the ACME truck. The modified truck was then redelivered to the City of Albany, where it was accepted and immediately put into use.
Sarah, one of the new city employees, was injured when her coworker, Emma, another new city employee, backed the pothole truck over her. Sarah is seriously injured and sued ACME, KM and STE arguing that the truck was defective and unreasonably dangerous because (1) the defendants failed to warn the purchaser, city of Albany, of the necessity of installing a back-up alarm and (2) the defendants failed to install a back-up alarm. The theories used include strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability, and breach of express warranties.
What is the Plaintiff statement for this case?
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Step by Step Answer:
Related Book For
Question Posted: