Strict Liabilty

747 Words3 Pages
Strict Liability Strict Liability The question this week deals with product liability, on the ground of strict liability. Bob was shopping at Carl’s Hardware store. One of Carl’s employee’s named Dan was using a nail gun and it fired without warning. A nail struck Bob in the leg. After checking the nail gun Carl discovers the manufacture, Eagle Tools, Inc., improperly assembled the tool. Bob files a suit against Eagle Tools, Inc, for product liability, on the ground of strict liability. The elements for action based on strict liability will be covered, who the court will like rule in favor of, and why in the following paragraphs. The doctrine for product liability applies to the seller of goods. This…show more content…
The six elements discussed above will de reviewed. First, it seems the product was defective with the information provided. Second, the defendant is engaged in the business of selling that product. Eagle Tools, Inc. is the manufacturer. Third, the product seems unreasonably dangerous in its defective state. The product was dangerous beyond expectation. It fired without the trigger being activated. Fourth, Bob did incur physical harm. Fifth, was the defective condition the proximate cause of harm? This is where an argument can be made with the information provided. For Bob he believes this to be true, so he feels this is met. Sixth, with the information provided it must be assumed the product was not substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury sustained. With all the information provided I feel Bob meets the requirements to file a suit. The last two questions need to be covered. Who will the court rule in favor of and why? Up to this point it was been covered why Bob can bring suit against Eagle Tool, Inc. Let’s not forget Eagle Tool, Inc has the opportunity to provide a defense to the claim. With the information provided they have no defense under Assumption of risk, Product misuse, nor comparative negligence. It was covered above in the fifth element that there is room to argue the defective condition was the proximate cause of harm. Dan, Carl’s employee was handling the

More about Strict Liabilty

Open Document