Bad Mojo Manufacturing Company makes various tools, including hammers. A homeowner was using the hammer to break bricks used to make a wall.

The homeowner was injured when the wooden handle of the hammer separated from the steel head and the head of the hammer hit the consumer in the face.

The homeowner files a lawsuit claiming the hammer is poorly designed, the wooden handle is defective, and that the way the head is attached is unreasonably dangerous. The homeowner also says most companies now use steel or fiberglass for handles.

Bad Mojo says the hammer is only for pounding nails into wood, not breaking bricks. The company also says the hammer is safe and carpenters use it all the time.

a.Can the homeowner sue Mojo for both negligence and strict liability?

b.Does the homeowner have any other basis to claim against Mojo? (any other reason or way to sue Mojo)

c.What defenses can Mojo raise?

d.Who do you think will win?