A manufacturer marketed a new mascara that initial testing revealed could cause an allergic reaction in a small number of people. One of the people found to have this allergic reaction in initial testing suffered significant loss of vision in one eye as a result. When the mascara was released on the market, the manufacturer included a warning of the possibility of an allergic reaction, but did not provide the consumer with any way to test for the allergy and made no mention of the possibility of this allergic reaction causing loss of vision. Joan purchased the new mascara from a local drug store and suffered an allergic reaction to the mascara that caused a 90% loss of vision in her right eye.

How strong of a case does Joan have against the manufacturer for strict product liability?

• Strong, because the manufacturer was clearly negligent by releasing a product to market that could cause an allergic reaction in anyone.
• Weak, because the manufacturer is not engaged in the business of selling and is therefore not subject to Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts (Second). However, Joan could sue the local drug store.
• Strong, because the warning by the manufacturer was inadequate, since the risk of harm was foreseeable and could have been reduced by providing a way of testing for the allergic reaction and informing consumers of the potential of vision loss.
• Weak, because the manufacturer met its duty to warn by informing consumers that the product could cause an allergic reaction, and therefore users of the mascara assumed the risk.