Hello Everyone,

Justice Posner used manufacturing defect as the theory of liability to find the defendant liable. With the given fact that Richard Welge and Karen Godfrey did not do anything out of the ordinary to cause damage to the jar, it then falls on the manufactures or retailer. This doesn't normally happen so a warning isn't needed, and this was an isolated even, so it is not a design defect.

The lower court granted a motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff did not give possible reasons of the accident other than a defect from manufacture. However, Posner disagreed because he believes the plaintiffs. He used the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. "This allows judges and juries to infer negligence based on the totality of the circumstances and the shared knowledge that arises out of human experience. Res ipsa is one type of circumstantial evidence that allows a reasonable fact finder to determine that the defendant's negligence caused an unusual event that subsequently caused injury to the plaintiff." (Findlaw, 2018) Basically, the fact that the jar broke and there was no evidence that anything happened to it, is evidence in itself.

I do agree with this decision. If the plaintiffs truly did nothing to the jar that would cause it to break or weaken, then something was wrong with the jar. Also, with not being able to prove that it was not them but are still able to hold the right people accountable is the right decision.

References

(Nov. 29, 2018). Res Ipsa Loquitur and Evidence Law. Retrieved from. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury-law/res-ipsa-loquitur.html

need a rely to this discussion post please