Read this case:

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA

March 14, 2014

BETWEENCarlton FisherPlaintiff,

and

CraftMaster Inc.,Defendant

Waldons Hardware Ltd.,Defendant

and Beverly ChartrandDefendant

Judgment delivered: Oct 14, 2014

Key terms in this case are product liability, strict liability, negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, causation, remoteness, sudden peril

Facts [1] In May of 2013, Sam Usher, purchased a lawnmower manufactured by Craftmaster ,, from Waldon's Hardware Ltd.

[2] The owner had used the lawnmower without incident since its purchase approximately 5 months ago.

[3] On Sept 12, 2013, the owner's neighbor, Carlton Fisher, hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff (P), requested permission from the "owner" to borrow the lawnmower in question, as his was in for repair.

[4] The "owner" gave his permission and the Plaintiff borrowed the lawnmower.

[5] The Plaintiff commenced cutting his front lawn at approximately 9:30 a.m and had been cutting the grass for approximately 20 minutes when, without warning, the blade of the lawnmower became disconnected from the spindle and was ejected from the underside of the lawnmower, severing the Plaintiff's left foot.

[6] The Plaintiff was smoking a cigarette at the time of the incident. Upon impact he dropped his lit cigarette onto the lawnmower which was covered with some amount of residual oil, resulting in the lawnmower bursting into flame.

[7] The flames from the lawnmower ignited the Plaintiffs pants, at which time the terrified Plaintiff hobbled to his open garage with his pants on fire, in an attempt to access a fire extinguisher which he knew he had kept there.

[8] A neighbor, a Mrs. Beverly Chartrand, who was walking by the Plaintiffs home, saw the incident and ran into the garage to assist the Plaintiff.

[9] Upon entering the garage, Mrs. Chartrand saw a pail filled with a liquid. Intending to put the fire out, Mrs. Chartrand threw the pail at the Plaintiff, exacerbating the situation as the pail was filled with kerosene.

[10] The Plaintiff, now dowsed in kerosene and engulfed in fire, collapsed as other neighbours and paramedics smothered the fire and removed the Plaintiff from the now burning garage.

[11] The Plaintiff's garage burnt to the ground.

[12] As a result, in addition to the loss of his left foot, the Plaintiff also suffered 3rd degree burns to over 20% of his body.

[13] The resulting trauma has left the Plaintiff with a prosthetic left food with significant medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of quality of life and income.

[14] The Plaintiff is now commencing this action against CraftMaster Inc., Waldons Hardware Ltd.as well as Mrs. Chartrand,and is seeking damages totaling $1,575,000.

[15] Examination For Discovery

Upon Examination for Discovery, the following facts became known:

1. It was revealed through internal memos, that early in 2014 the Defendant Manufacturer had begun using less costly, lower quality bolts that held the blade to the spindle. Internal memos indicate that Engineering had warned management that the cheaper bolts might fail under normal use.

2. there is evidence to suggest representatives for the defendant manufacturer were not forthcoming in providing information during discovery and intentionally obfuscated and delayed these proceedings.

3. The Plaintiff had been drinking while operating the lawnmower, had not been wearing shoes of any kind, and was, in fact, operating the lawnmower in his bare feet.

4. The Plaintiff's property had many tree roots sticking out above the ground.The "owner" recalls "cringing" every time the lawnmower hit a tree root.The "owner" has testified that he was outside working and could plainly hear every time the lawnmower hit a tree root.

Answer the below questions:

1 . Could Fisher sue CraftMaster for Product Liability? Look up the definition of product liability and use it in your answer.

2 . Argument for the Defendant Craftsman : Name the three legal defenses against negligence. Which one(s) would you use if you were CraftMaster's lawyer? Explain why using details of the case.

3 . Look up the definition of sudden peril. Does it apply in the case of Beverley Chartrand here?Explain.

4 . As the judge, what is your ruling as to who wins this case. Remember, any or all parties could be partly or fully at fault, or the case could be dismissed with nobody's fault? You must decide separately in the case of each of the three defendants.