Aside from manufacturing and design defects, should courts hold manufacturer's liable for a failure to warn customers of the risks involved in the use of a product?
Notes: Plaintiff was a toddler who choked on marshmallows manufactured by the defendant, and thereby suffered severe brain damage. The bag the marshmallows came in had no labels identifying marshmallows as a choking hazard for young children. The plaintiff did not claim that the marshmallows were improperly manufactured or designed. Rather, the plaintiff claimed the defendant should be liable for failure to warn consumers that marshmallows are a choking hazard for young children.
Should a manufacturer be liable for harm caused by defective products if the person harmed is not the person whom the manufacturer sold the product to?
Notes: Defendant sold an automobile to a retail dealer, who then resold it to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was in the car, it suddenly collapsed, throwing him out of the car and injuring him. One of the wheels was made of defective wood and had crumbled at the time of the accident. Although the defendant had purchased the wheel from another manufacturer, the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection.
This case contrasts manufacturing and design defects by analyzing each products liability theory in parallel.
Notes: Plaintiff was injured when a truck hit him from behind due to its brake system falling apart. The truck was manufactured by the defendant motor corporation, but modified after-sale by the dealer. Due to the weight of the after-sale modification, it is possible that the accident would have occurred anyway as the installed brake system may have lacked sufficient braking power to stop the truck. However, at the time of purchase, the defendant motor corporation offered an alternative brake system that may have been powerful enough to stop the modified truck.
Should mere sellers of a defective good be liable for latent defects that are likely created by the manufacturer?
Notes: Plaintiff was injured when he bit into a loaf of bread that had a pin in it. The loaf had been purchased from the defendant's store. At the time of the purchase, the plaintiff's wife had specified the brand of read. The defendant's salesman gave the plaintiff's wife the desired loaf of bread, still wrapped in a factory-sealed package.
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.