HELLO I HAVE AN ASSIGNMENT ABOUT CHAPTER 7 PRODUCT LIABILITY analysis ( course business law) they have choices .

question 1

Five-year-old Cheyenne Stark was riding in the backseat of her parents' Ford Taurus. Cheyenne was not sitting in a booster seat. Instead, she was using a seatbelt designed by Ford, but was wearing the shoulder belt behind her back. The car was involved in a collision. As a result, Cheyenne suffered a spinal cord injury and was paralyzed from the waist down. The family filed a suit against Ford Motor Co., alleging that the seatbelt was defectively designed. Could Ford successfully claim that Cheyenne had misused the seatbelt?

a.

Yes. While Cheyenne may have been too young to understand the risks of wearing the seatbelt incorrectly, her parents were not and were responsible for the misuse of the product.

b.

Ford could not succeed on a claim that Cheyenne had misused the seatbelt because it is reasonably foreseeable thata child would wear a seatbelt incorrectly.

Question2

Shalene Kolchek bought a Great Lakes Spa and had it installed in her backyard. Three months later, Kolchek left her six-year-old daughter, Litisha, alone in the spa. While exploring the spa's hydromassage jets, Litisha stuck her index finger into one of the jet holes and was unable to remove her finger from the jet. Litisha yanked hard, injuring her finger, then panicked and screamed for help. Kolchek was unable to remove Litisha's finger, and the local police and rescue team were called to assist. After a three-hour operation that included draining the spa, sawing out a section of the spa's plastic molding, and slicing the jet casing, Litisha's finger was freed. Following this procedure, the spa was no longer functional. Litisha was taken to the local emergency room, where she was told that a bone in her finger was broken in two places. Which claim against Great Lakes Spa is Kolchek most likely to win.

a.

Strict Liability because the spa was defective and unreasonably dangerous.

b.

Negligence because its foreseeable that a child would put her finger into an open jet.

c.

Negligence because the manufacturer owed no duty of care to the children of customers.

d.

Strict liability because the spa performed differently than a reasonable consumer would expect.

Question3

Bubba Hunter, an experienced hunter, bought a paintball gun. Hunter practiced with the gun and knew how to screw in the carbon dioxide cartridge, pump the gun, and use its safety and trigger. Although Hunter was aware that he could purchase protective eyewear, he chose not to buy it. Hunter had taken gun safety courses and understood that it was "common sense" not to shoot anyone in the face. Hunter and his friends (who were also familiar with the gun's use and risks) played a game that involved shooting paintballs at cars whose occupants also had the guns. One night, while Hunter and friends were cruising with their guns, the friend shot at Hunter's car, hitting him in the eye. Hunter filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the paintball gun to recover for the injury. Hunter claimed that the gun was defectively designed. His friend testified that the gun had never before malfunctioned. In whose favor should the court rule?

a.

In favor of the manufacturer because the gun performed as expected and had never malfunctioned.

b.

In favor of Bubba because the gun should have been equipped with night vision capability.

Question4

Ray Hoffman tried to unclog a floor drain in the kitchen of the restaurant where he worked. He used a drain cleaner called Lewis Red Devil Lye that contained crystalline sodium hydroxide. The product label said to wear eye protection, to put one tablespoon of lye directly into the drain, and to keep one's face away from the drain because there could be dangerous backsplash. Without eye protection, Hoffman mixed three tablespoons of lye in a can and poured that mixture down the drain while bending over it. Liquid splashed back into his face, causing injury. He brought a product liability suit based on inadequate warnings and design defect. An expert for Hoffman stated that the product was defective because it had a tendency to backsplash. What is the likely result of both claims?

a.

The warnings were adequate because they were detailed. The product was not defective because liquids ordinarily splash back.

b.

The warnings were obviously not adequate because Hoffman was injured. The product was obviously defective because it splashed back.

c.

The warning was adequate because it was detailed. The product was defective because ordinary consumers would not expect it to splashback.

d.

The warnings were inadequate because they should have included more detail. The product was not defective because liquids often splash back.

Question5

Calles lived with her four young daughters. In March 1998, Calles bought an Aim N Flame utility lighter, which she stored on the top shelf of her kitchen cabinet. A trigger can ignite the Aim N Flame after an "ON/OFF" switch is slid to the "on" position. On the night of March 31, Calles and Victoria left to get videos. Jenna and Jillian were in bed, and Amanda was watching television. When Calles returned the house was on fire. Finn, thefire investigator, determined that Jenna had started a fire using the lighter. Jillian suffered smoke inhalation, was hospitalized, and died. Calles filed a suit against Scripto-Tokai Corp., which distributed the Aim N Flame, and others. In her suit, which was grounded, in part, in strict liability claims, Calles alleged that the lighter was an "unreasonably dangerous product." Scripto filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that an ordinary user would understand the dangers of the lighter in the hands of a child and that the utility of the lighter outweighed its risks. How should the court rule?

a.

There is no question of fact. The Aim N Flame performed as an ordinary consumer would expect it to. Nor is there a question of fact that the risks of the lighter's design are outweighed by its utility.

b.

There is no question of fact that the Aim N Flame did not fail to perform as an ordinary consumer would expect but there is a question of fact whether the risks of the lighter are outweighed by its utility.

thank you.