Carl owns and operates a tanning salon. Maggie is one of his customers. The salon uses tanning beds that are equipped with ultraviolet lights above and below the tanning bed. These lights are automatically regulated to control radiation exposure to the customer. Maggie visited the salon and, while lying upon one of the tanning beds, fell asleep. The automatic regulator became stuck at maximum intensity. Maggie was severely burned by the radiation from the ultraviolet lights.

Based upon this fact pattern, answer the following questions:

• Do you believe that Maggie can successfully bring a claim against the tanning salon for negligence? If so, what would Maggie need to prove and by what standard(s)?
• Do you believe that Maggie can successfully bring a claim against the manufacturer of the tanning bed for negligence? If so, what would Maggie need to prove and by what standard(s)?

My answer. Yes, Maggie is able to effectively sue the tanning salon for negligence. Maggie would have to demonstrate that the salon owed her a duty to protect her from an unreasonable risk of harm, that it breached this duty by failing to ensure that the automatic regulator was functioning correctly, and that this breach of duty caused her injury. The standard for negligence is the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

Yes, Maggie can also successfully pursue a claim against the manufacturer of the tanning bed for negligence. Maggie would have to demonstrate that the manufacturer owed her a duty to produce a reasonably secure product, that the manufacturer breached this duty by producing a bed with a defective automatic regulator, and that this breach of duty caused her injuries. Under these conditions, the standard of negligence would be that of a reasonable manufacturer.

Response. If the tanning salon proprietor was negligent in maintaining the tanning beds, how could she sue the manufacturer if this was not due to a manufacturing defect?