Question

Chapter 15 Case 1 p. 439 "Business Law With UCC Applications", 15th edition, by Paul A. Sukys

Did the Leichtamers recover against the manufacturer on a theory of strict liability? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Yes, the Leichtamers recovered against the manufacturer on a theory of strict liability. On a presumption of strict liability the Leichtamers prevailed against the maker as the case of the jeep manufacturer indicates that he is advocating what is unreasonably risky. Traveling up and down steep hills is a dangerous activity and the manufacture needs to take all the necessary measures to ensure driver safety. On the opposite, Jeep manufacture does not exercise its due diligence because, as a responsible citizen, it refuses to make considerable efforts to anticipate serious incidents that could occur and provide the Jeep with sufficient protection by installing roll bar attached to solid sheet metal that can not easily cede in the event of accident. The manufacture should have judged, foreseen and attempted to equip the Jeep not only with hard sheet metal but also with roll bars for side-roll and pitch over safety, taking into account all the dangers that that occur while driving on steep hills. Looking at the argument of the manufacture, it is clear that he foresaw accidents that could result from pitch over, but he failed to exercise due care and also provide protection for such accidents. Therefore the Jeep maker encourages a relatively unsafe operation and as a result the lesson on a principle of strict liability is claimed against the manufacturer.

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****