Scenario:Two men and a woman and thepilotboarded an Air Bearairplane for a skydiving expedition. Shortly after takeoff, the right engine failed, and the airplane crashed. All four persons aboard the airplane died because of the crash. Plaintiffs, the decedents' parents, filed a strict liability lawsuit for wrongful death against Stanasters, Inc., a company that manufactured the blades used in the turbine engines of the airplane. Plaintiffs introduced evidence at trial that showed that the blades manufactured by Stanasterswere defective because the aluminide coating and base metal alloy used in the blades made the blades unsafe for use in the airplanes engine. Plaintiffs' expert witnesses testified that the coating used by Stanasterswas prone to cracking and that the base metal alloy had low oxidation resistance, both which made Stanasters' blades defective. Other evidence showed that the blades had never passed a required 150-hour endurance test before they were installed. The parents sought compensatory damages for each of the deceased parties as well as punitive damages against Stanasters.

Questions:

1. Using the IRAC method, determine whether Stanastersstrictly liable for the death of the deceased parties of the airplane crash because of a defect in design of the blades used in the engine of the crashed airplane? Why or why not?
2. Is Stanasters liable for punitive damages?Why or why not?
3. Should there be a limit to the amount of punitive damages that a plaintiff can receive? Why or why not?
4. In what ways can a company protect itself from a product liability suit? Which ways are most practical (e.g. economical, etc.)?