(Senco), eumatic strict liability based on design defect. Is Senco liable nich dis- to Lakin for strict liability based on a design defect cial nails in the SN325 that allowed it to double-fire? Lakin v. ischarge Senco Products, Inc., 144 Ore. App. 52, 925 P.2d 107, tivated; Web 1996 Ore. App. Lexis 1466 (Court of Appeals of un's fin- Oregon) gainst a 2 Design Defect Lorenzo Peterson was swimming in ty. The the trig- a swimming pool with a friend at an apartment com- plex. Lorenzo watched his friend swim to the bottom ounced of the pool, slide an unattached drain cover away, and ing the then slide it back. Lorenzo thought his friend had hid- le-fired den something inside the drain, so he swam to the bot- tom of the pool. Lorenzo slid the drain cover aside and SN325's stuck his arm inside the drain. The 300 to 400 pounds in the of pull of the drain pump held Lorenzo trapped under- so that water. At least seven people tried to free Lorenzo to no gaging avail. When the police arrived, they broke down the use of door to the pool equipment room and turned off the preva- drain pump. Lorenzo was trapped underwater for 12 minutes, gun to which left him irreversibly brain damaged. Evidence at il two- trial showed that Sta-Rite's drain covers are designed to stood screw down, but often a drain cover becomes loose. Fur- head. ther evidence showed that there had been more than 20 hand prior suction-entrapment accidents involving Sta-Rite's d the drain covers and pumps. Evidence showed that others essed had designed a pool drain pump with a mechanism that e the would automatically shut off a pool drain pump when l and it detected that it was pulling more than it should. Sta- unin- Rite did not install such safety features on its drain e gun pumps, however. Lorenzo, through his relatives, sued Sta-Rite Indus- with tries, Inc., the manufacturer of the drain, under the ntact doctrine of strict liability to recover damages for Lorenzo's fety/ injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the underwater pool This drain was defectively designed because it did not con- into tain a shut-off mechanism. Is there a design defect? Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. v. Peterson, 837 So.2d 988, right Web 2003 Fla. App. Lexis 1673 (Court of Appeal of tery, Florida, 2003) un- went 3 Failure to Warn The Emerson Electric Co. man- dam- ufactures and sells a product called the Weed Eater the XR-90. The Weed Eater is a multipurpose weed- rtial trimming and brush-cutting device. It consists of a der- handheld gasoline-powered engine connected to a vio- long drive shaft, at the end of which can be attached +ting weeds and brush. One such