I don't understand how I should make case/argument for plaintiff.

Facts

It was a wet and nasty spring in upstate New York, and that combined with the preceding frigid winter led to potholes on every street in the city of Albany. The city government, besieged on all sides by irate homeowners and car drivers, decided to beef up their pothole fixing capacity. They hired new workers and gave them a few days of training on how to fix potholes. The city also decided to upgrade its' fleet of repair trucks.

A car manufacturer (ACME) manufactured the cab and chassis (flat-bed, wheels, axle, etc.) of a truck that was sold to Keefer Motors (KM). The truck sat on the lot of Keefer Motors for two days and then was sold unchanged to the city of Albany. Neither ACME nor KM discussed with the city what the city would do with the truck. The city then took the truck to Susan's Truck Equipment Co. (STE), a manufacturer of add on items necessary to convert generic trucks for specific uses. STE manufactured a dump bed and hoist that was sold to the city of Albany and, then installed the dump bed and hoist on the ACME truck. The modified truck was then redelivered to the City of Albany, where it was accepted and immediately put into use.

Sarah, one of the new city employees, was injured when her coworker, Emma, another new city employee, backed the pothole truck over her. Sarah is seriously injured and sued ACME, KM and STE arguing that the truck was defective and unreasonably dangerous because (1) the defendants failed to warn the purchaser, city of Albany, of the necessity of installing a back-up alarm and (2) the defendants failed to install a back-up alarm. The theories used include strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability, and breach of express warranties.

Please take a look at the following document to see very important information regarding both general principles of law and a specific note regarding the law in this case.

This is very importantignore New York statutory regulations regarding back up alarms, warning lights or beepers. Although there may well be statutes or regulations that require alarms, beepers, etc. on trucks in New York, you should not rely on or even acknowledge those laws or regulations. In other words, while you might be able to find a statute or regulation that demands or does not demand a back up alarm, that may change from state to state and it is more interesting and useful for our purposes to research and rely on the common law. In the interests of exploring the main issues lnegligence, strict product liability, warranty, etc.}, rather than statutory interpretation and application, assume there are no laws regarding these topics and you need to argue that the common law and UCC principles mentioned above support your argument that such alarms or warnings are needed or not needed. For good reason this is the last case studywe will be drawing upon many of the legal principles studied throughout the course. Legal topics include: Negligencego back to case study one for a thorough discussion of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages, the elements needed to mount a successful negligence action. Remember, Sarah is allegingfailure to warn and failure to install. Breach of Express Warrantytake a look at chapter 24. Express warranties are created by either sample or statement, be it oral or written. In this case, we really don't have all the information necessary to determine if an express warranty was created since we necessarily are working with limited facts. However, in "real life" express warra nty would presumably be one ofthe stronger cases that could be made. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness and Merchantibilityagain, review chapter 24. Generally, an implied warranty provides that the good is t for ordinary purposes and normal use. What is ordinary purpose and normal use? That is determined by a combination of the reasonable person and common knowledge in the industry. Strict Tort Liabilitysee chapter 24, but generally, strict tort liability arises if it can be shown that there was a defect in the item at the time it left the defendant. The defect can be a defect of design, a failure to warn or a manufacturing defect or oversight. It must be shown however, that that item is unreasonably dangerous at the time it caused the injury One last hinta chart is always a good tool when dealing with theories that are not only potentially confusing but overlapping as well. For an example, see the chart in Chapter 25 of your text. While it is probably not a persuasive tool to submit a chart to the jury, it can be very useful in helping the group divide research or writing chores and just focus