{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Week 2 Discussion Questions Keith

Week 2 Discussion Questions Keith - Keith Carlos Discussion...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Keith Carlos Week 2 Discussion Questions Mary is cutting weeds at her home. She is unable to trim some weeds she finds, because they grew between the rocks, so she removes the protective guard on the weed trimmer and trims the weeds. There are no warnings on the weed trimmer advising against removing the guard. She hits a rock, which is thrown to the side, hitting her neighbor in the eye and causing permanent damage. What kind of tort claim does the neighbor have? Who are the possible defendants? Claims Failure To Warn (chapter 6 page 109/113) The Manufacturer should have warned of the dangers that come with the removal of the weed trimmer guard. The dangers were not clearly marked as to warn the consumer or those around of just how dangerous operation of the trimmer without the guard could be. Design Defect (chapter 6 page 113) The Manufacturer should have made it impossible to operate the unit without a guard in place. As long as the guard does not interfere with the unit being able to complete the job for which is was designed.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}