Please reply to the peer post.

The concept of strict liability is necessary to ensure the safety of consumers and I believe that most reasonable sellers try to achieve this, however, I do not think the rules in regard to strict liability are reasonable. Strict liability states that the seller is liable for harms or damage suffered by the user of the product if the product is in "defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property (Prenkert et al., 2022, p.147)." What makes it unreasonable is that the seller is still considered liable even if they have "exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product (Prenkert et al., 2022, p.147)." There have been many cases that I have seen throughout the years in which the reasonable-expectations-of-the consumer were questionable. It seems that in these torts perhaps the "reasonable consumer" should not be the one determining what is or is not unreasonably dangerous as I feel that this standard is often used to get back at these large (and in some cases) small corporations.

In cases where the product cannot be made safer i.e. alcohol or power tools (for argument sake) the risk-utility test is used, did the seller provide an appropriate, effective warning, in the case of power tools, with items like alcohol many courts find that there is no duty to warn the consumer if the risk is open and obvious. In torts where it is found that the consumer substantially modified a product the seller can avoid liability. An example of this could be bypassing or eliminating a safety guard on a power tool which resulted in physical harm to the consumer. There are always warning about bypassing guards on dangerous tools and using a product in ways other than intend or instructed could help sellers avoid liability.