Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
50. If no additional facts are provided to the court concerning the risk of tire rupture, should the court grant the motion?
After discovering this memorandum, the driver's attorney filed a timely amended complaint, adding a claim for battery. The manufacturer has moved for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the battery claim, based on the undisputed facts set out above.
The driver sued the manufacturer on a strict products liability theory. During discovery, the driver's attorney obtained a memorandum that had circulated among engineers employed by the manufacturer. The memorandum acknowledged that undetectable defects would cause ruptures in approximately one out of every 10,000 tires sold. The manufacturer sells approximately 10 million tires per year.
A driver was injured when one of the tires on her car ruptured, causing the car to veer off the road. The rupture resulted from a defect in the tire that existed at the time it was sold by the manufacturer to a retailer, who sold it to the driver and installed it on her car.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. A reasonable jury might conclude that a responsible manufacturer would have taken greater care. However, that finding would not establish the intent necessary for battery liability.
B is incorrect. Battery liability requires the element of intent or acting with a substantial certainty that harmful conduct would result from one's behavior. Here, the evidence of a small statistical likelihood of tire failure does not satisfy that element. The manufacturer knew to a substantial certainty that a few of its tires would rupture. It did not know to a substantial certainty that persons would be injured as a result of those ruptures.
C is incorrect. A plaintiff is not prohibited from pursuing claims for both battery and products liability based on the same set of facts.