Product Liability Theories of Recovery and DefensesRead the scenario.Richard Wood loved to sprinkle...

Question

Product Liability Theories of Recovery and DefensesRead the scenario.Richard Wood loved to sprinkle peanuts on his ice-cream sundaes. One day, Karen Goldfish, with whom Wood boarded, bought a 24-ounce-vacuum-sealed-plastic-capped glass jar of peanuts at a convenience store. To get a rebate of $2 from the manufacturer, Goldfish removed the part of the label that contained the bar code and gave it as proof of purchase at the store. She then placed the jar on top of the refrigerator. Wood and Goldfish would take peanuts from the jar and put it back on top of the refrigerator until one day when Wood shattered the jar while pushing its cap down. His hand was severely cut and he claimed it was permanently impaired. Wood filed a suit against the three parties—the convenience store, the peanut manufacturer, and the jar manufacturer.Answer the following questions:  	In your opinion, against whom is Wood most likely to win the suit? Provide a rationale to support your choice. 	On the premise of which product liability theory or theories of recovery—breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability—will Wood be able to recover? How? 	What defenses, if any, are available to each defendant? Describe in detail. 
	
Document Preview: W2/A2/05Product Liability Theories of Recovery and DefensesRead the scenario.Richard Wood loved to sprinkle peanuts on his ice-cream sundaes. One day, Karen Goldfish, with whom Wood boarded, bought a 24-ounce-vacuum-sealed-plastic-capped glass jar of peanuts at a convenience store. To get a rebate of $2 from the manufacturer, Goldfish removed the part of the label that contained the bar code and gave it as proof of purchase at the store. She then placed the jar on top of the refrigerator. Wood and Goldfish would take peanuts from the jar and put it back on top of the refrigerator until one day when Wood shattered the jar while pushing its cap down. His hand was severely cut and he claimed it was permanently impaired. Wood filed a suit against the three parties—the convenience store, the peanut manufacturer, and the jar manufacturer.Answer the following questions:In your opinion, against whom is Wood most likely to win the suit? Provide a rationale to support your choice.On the premise of which product liability theory or theories of recovery—breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability—will Wood be able to recover? How?What defenses, if any, are available to each defendant? Describe in detail. Instructions:  Provide a 2-page MS document with references, APA formatting, & cite all quoted references. Reference BookBagley, C XXXXXXXXXXManagers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century (7th ed). Cengage Learning. Analyzed and justified against whom Wood is most likely to win the suit.Described the product liability theory or theories of recovery on the basis of which Wood will be able to recover.Described the defenses, if any, that are available to each defendant. 

Robert · Accepted Answer

Product Liability Theories of Recovery and Defenses                                           1 
 
 
Product Liability Theories of Recovery and Defenses 
In your opinion, against whom is Wood most likely to win the suit? Provide a rationale to 
support your choice. 
Wood would be able to win the case most likely against the Manufacturer of the Jar. This is 
because of the following rationale. The manufacturer of the jar is the party who is responsible for 
the specifications of the jar, and hence after the investigative examination, it can be established 
whose fault was it and hence “Negligence” can be claimed”. (Coleman & Logan, 2013) 
First, the convenience store is the seller of the product and in order to win the suit against him, it 
should be under the strict liability where in the buyer does not have to prove the party who was 
responsible for the defective product. But the prerequisite for this is that the product has to be 
undeniably dangerous and hazardous which is not the case here because the jar was alright for 
many days but when the cap for forcefully inserted, only then it got shattered. (Coleman & 
Logan, 2013) 
Secondly, Wood cannot win case against the peanut manufacturer because, although the 
packaging of the product was done by him, but since he was not responsible for the product 
specifications of the jar and there is no written contract between the peanut manufacturer, Breach 
of guarantee and Strict liability cannot be imposed upon the peanut manufacturer. (Lawyer 
Locator,

Product Liability Theories of Recovery and Defenses Read the scenario. Richard Wood loved to sprinkle peanuts on his ice-cream sundaes. One day, Karen Goldfish, with whom Wood boarded, bought a...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment