1. In a suit by the plaintiff against Chemco, based on strict liability, the plaintiff will

A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration.

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense in a strict products liability action where the plaintiff merely failed to discover the defect or guard against its existence, or where the plaintiff's misuse was reasonably foreseeable. However, assumption of risk may be a defense, where the plaintiff engaged in voluntary and unreasonable conduct and used the product despite discovering the defect and being aware of the danger.

D is correct. Under a products liability claim asserting a design defect, a plaintiff is required to show the existence of safer alternative designs. In general, the plaintiff must prevail in a risk-utility balancing test which illustrates that the risk and severity of the injury experienced was predictable. In some jurisdictions, once the plaintiff meets this burden and demonstrates causation, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that their product was as safe as possible and that its benefits outweighed the risks. Here, the facts indicate that it was safe, consistent with its educational purposes, and its benefits exceeded its risks. Therefore, since the manufacturer met that burden, the plaintiff would not prevail on his design defect claim.

A is incorrect. The plaintiff would not prevail, even though the chemistry set did not contain a warning that its contents could be combined to form dangerous explosives.

Warnings are generally required when a product is (i) dangerous in a non-obvious way; (ii) the manufacturer knew about the danger; and (iii) the danger is present when the product is used as it is intended or used in another reasonable and foreseeable way. As a general matter, even if a product is safe for its intended purpose/use, manufacturers are expected to account for reasonably foreseeable uses, even if they are misuses of the product.

Here, the plaintiff and his friend did not use the chemistry set as intended and their misuse was not reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. The two attempted to make a bomb and used chemicals included with the chemistry set for that purpose. Further, in making the bomb, they did not consult with any instructions or warnings included with the chemistry set and instead consulted with a library book about explosives. Consequently, because the chemistry set was not used for its intended purpose, and the misuse of the product was not reasonably foreseeable, the plaintiff would not be able to recover for the absence of a warning.

B is incorrect. Any abnormally dangerous activities by the manufacturer of the chemistry set are irrelevant to the facts at issue. Abnormally dangerous activities can result in a defendant being held strictly liable for injuries. Specifically, ultra-hazardous activities by landowners and occupiers give rise to strict liability for any resulting injury, because the inherent danger or peculiar risk is unreasonably high when compared to their social utility, even in the absence of negligence and where all the proper precautions have been taken. However, the facts at issue here involve a strict product liability matter, in which the relevant question is whether the chemistry set was defectively designed. Consequently, the condition of the land where the manufacturer resides would be completely irrelevant.

C is incorrect. The teenager's negligence would not be dispositive of whether the plaintiff could prevail, although it may be relevant to the calculation of damages. Under a strict liability theory of products liability, a manufacturer has an absolute duty to make a product safe, and there is not a consideration of whether negligent acts by other parties defeat causation. Therefore, if the chemistry set was found to be defective, the teenager's negligent actions would not cut off the manufacturer's liability to the plaintiff.