There are 5 different types of product suits a consumer can bring for a defective product. They are intentional, strict liability, misrepresentation, negligence, and express/implied warranty. Strict liability Oscar can bring a cause of action against Autos, Inc. under a strict liability suit. Under strict liability theory, a general supplier or manufacturer who releases a product into the stream of commerce has the utmost duty to make safe their product. This product should be free from any type of defect. There are three types of defect. 1. Manufacturer’s defect 2. Design defect and 3. Inadequate warning sign defect. The defect was the actual and proximate cause of the injury. And the proper plaintiff is anyone who comes into contact with the defective product andused it in foreseeable manner. A general supplier is defined as someone who is regularly engaged in the business of selling the product or putting the product in the stream of commerce. Here, Autos inc. is a manufacturer and thus a strict liability action would be proper against them. The product must be free from any type of defect. As discussed above the three types of defectsare 1. Manufacturer’s defect 2. Design defect and 3. Inadequate warning sign defect. A design defect is when the plaintiff can show that there would have been a safer alternative construction of the product making the product safer. Autos inc. knew that installing an airbag sensor in their car or at the very least inserting an on/off switch for the airbag would have madetheir product safer. They were aware of the fact that inserting a sensor under the seat would have prevented the type of injury Chloe suffered. Most people would happily spend an extra 900 dollars if they are already buying a roadster for their safety and the safety of their child children. If they did not want to insert a sensor because they thought 900 dollars would be too costly, adding a 5-dollar safety switch would have been negligible for Autos inc. in production of the Roadster. However, they consciously decided to forgo the safer design in an effort to save cost. They chose profit over safety. As a result, Oscar can prove that Autos inc. committed a design defect in the making of their vehicle.