Allen is a retailer of tools manufactured by A.C. Cooper Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturing company. The goods were kept with Allen for a week for the purposes of inspection before they could be sold to the ultimate consumer. This provision was made to allow Allen to examine the goods for any defects before they are passed on to the final consumer.

Allen received 200 can openers on 20th September 2020 and as per the agreement, the can openers were kept with him for a week for the purpose of examination and inspection before they could be sold to consumers.

On 30th October 2020, David purchased a can opener from Allen. Because a nut was wrongly fitted into the can opener at the time of manufacturing, David injured his left eye when trying to open a can with his new can opened. Unfortunately, David had recently had an operation for a detached retina on the same eye. As a result, the when the loose part of the can opener hit him in the left eye, he was left permanently blinded in that eye.

It was later found out that A.C. Cooper's employee, Ryan, had not properly fastened the nuts on a number of can openers in the same batch as the ones received by Allen on 20th September 2020. Although a loose nut can be potentially dangerous, it is difficult to see this defect with the naked eye.

David then brought a suit for Damages against Allen under Tort law.

Discuss whether there can be any potential claims in Tort for the parties involved in the above fact pattern?

IRAC METHOD PLEASE