Tina Torts Essay 2.docx - Torts Essay 2 Against Mfr Strict Liability Sally may file a product liability under the theory of strict liability against Mfr

Tina Torts Essay 2.docx - Torts Essay 2 Against Mfr Strict...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

Torts Essay 2 Against Mfr. Strict Liability Sally may file a product liability under the theory of strict liability against Mfr. to recover damages for the loss of her eyesight. Under strict liability a defendant has an absolute duty to make safe products that enter the stream of commerce. The elements are 1. That the defendant be a commercial supplier 2. The product is defective 3. Actual and proximate cause and 4. plaintiff used the product in a foreseeable manner. A commercial supplier is classified as one who deals with the regular use and sale of the good. Commercial suppliers include anyone who regularly associates with the sale of the product. This includes manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Mfr prescription allergy pill was produced by themselves and they advertised their own product. They would clearly be thought of as a commercial supplier. There are three types of defects. 1. Manufacturing defect 2. Design defect and 3. Inadequate warning signs defect. A manufacturing defect is usually a one-off defect where the product was not manufactured to the specifications originally designed. This can include as an item missing an important screw or piece. The second defect is a design defect. The plaintiff needs to show that the item as a whole could have been designed and manufactured in a safer way. The third defect is an inadequate warning label defect. Items that so dangerous such as a chainsaw, flame thrower, or in this case medicine need to have adequate warning signs. Inadequate warning labels is the defect present with the allergy pills. The warning label for Mfr was clearly

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture