Question 9 Question 10 A fire broke out in a home that had been A patient was admitted to a hospital to recently remodeled, destroying the house and undergo an x-ray procedure that required him to injuring the homeowner. An investigation by the be tilted up. During the procedure, the techni- fire marshal established that the fire started from cian improperly strapped the patient to an x-ray a short in some wiring behind a wall. A small table designed for the procedure. There was section of wiring that ran to an outlet through a a footrest at the bottom of the table to help narrow gap between a furnace chimney and a support the patient, but the bolts holding the hot water pipe had had part of its outer sheath footrest gave way and the footrest fell off. Had cut off. The homeowner filed suit against the the patient been securely strapped in, he would electrical company that did the rough wiring. have remained on the table. However, the loss of the footrest caused sufficient additional pressure The parties stipulated for trial that the on the straps that they loosened, and the patient company had installed the wiring in compliance fell from the table, struck his head, and suffered with the blueprints, and that the wiring had been injuries. The patient sued the manufacturer of inspected and approved by the building inspector the x-ray table, which supplied the table fully before the chimney and the water pipe had been assembled, on a theory of strict liability for his installed and the walls put up, all by different injuries. contractors. At trial, the homeowner introduced the report of the fire marshal establishing how Judgment will likely be for: the fire started, and evidence of his medical expenses and other damages. At the end of the (A) The patient, because the x-ray table was homeowner's case, the electrical company's dangerously defective. attorney rested her case and moved for a directed verdict. The homeowner's attorney also moved (B) The patient, because the failure of the bolts for a directed verdict. would not likely have occurred without fault on the part of the manufacturer. How should the court rule on the directed verdict motions? (C) The manufacturer, because the hospital employee was negligent when he failed to (A) Deny both directed verdict motions, because properly secure the straps. the homeowner has presented enough evidence to submit the case to the jury. (D) The manufacturer, because the table was not in its exclusive control when the plain- (B) Deny the electrical company's motion tiff incurred his injury. and grant the homeowner's motion for a directed verdict, because the company failed to rebut the presumption of negli- gence that the homeowner has established. (C) Deny the homeowner's motion and grant the electrical company's motion for a directed verdict, because the wire could have been damaged by another contractor. (D) Deny the electrical company's motion and grant the homeowner's motion for a directed verdict, because a short in the wiring caused the homeowner's injuries
