81. Should the court grant the store's motion?

D is correct. The issue in this question is res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa is a doctrine that permits the factfinder to infer negligence when there is no direct evidence that the defendant acted negligently. To establish res ipsa, the plaintiff must show (i) the event that happened is one that usually does not occur absent the negligence of a party; (ii) the harm was caused by something in the defendant's exclusive control; and (iii) the plaintiff is not the one who caused the event to occur. Courts generally apply the «exclusive control» element liberally. However, the facts in this question fail even that liberal standard because the store has had no control over the television for two years. Thus, this is not an appropriate use of res ipsa loquitur and, absent other evidence of negligence on the part of the store, there is no evidence to support the son's negligence claim.

A is incorrect. It may be true that televisions do not catch fire in the absence of negligence, but there is no evidence that any such negligence was on the part of the store. This answer choice relies on res ipsa loquitur. However, as explained above, the control element is not met.

B is incorrect. The son sued the store for negligence, not for strict liability. To recover on a negligence claim, the son must establish that the store itself was negligent. If the son had sued under strict liability, he would have had to establish that the television was defective at the time it was sold to his mother. Because the son cannot establish the store's negligence, the court should grant the store's motion.

C is incorrect. A lack of privity is not a barrier to negligence claims based on malfunctioning products. Anyone foreseeably put at risk by a defective product and actually injured by the product's defective condition can sue for negligence. The court should grant the store's motion, but it is because the son cannot establish that the store was the negligent actor.