Question

Alice smith purchased a toy chest at Target. Once she got home, she assembled the toy chest, but neglected to read the instructions provided by the manufacturer, Let's Play!. Unfortunately, at the end she realized she had some parts left over. Not wanting to start over, she decided that the chest worked well enough and filled it with toys. She threw out the remaining parts. The next day, Alice and her mother, Alexandra Miler, spent the afternoon playing with children in the living room, where the toy chest was located. As they were tidying up, they opened the lid to the toy chest. As they were doing so, the lid on the chest, unexpectedly slammed shut on Alexandra's arm causing bruises, scraps and cuts as well as broken bones.

Alexandra sues Let's Play! for $100,000 in damages based on a claim of strict product liability. What does Miller have to establish to prove her case of strict product liability? List all elements she must show to prove her claim. Apply the elements to the facts in the case. Judgment for whom?

Answer 1

Explanation:

Strict liability is a tort theory in which it imposed that legal liability for the damages and injuries happened to person even in the condition when a person who was strictly liable and did not act with negligence or fault. The plaintiff needs to show that there was a fault in the product which caused injury or damage to the plaintiff. A plaintiff needs to show how the product was made with a fault which made the product unreasonably dangerous. The strict liability imposed even in the case where the plaintiff has done ultrahazardous activities in an abnormally dangerous condition.

- In this case, Alexandra Miler does not do any fault or performed negligence but product was not designed safely and that caused injury to Miller, there was no ultrahazardous activity performed by Miler in any dangerous situation, it was the fault of the manufacturer that made product with such defected that caused this accident in such normal condition.