18. In this suit, the result should be for the

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. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.

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.

C is correct. The auctioneer will prevail and the buyer's claim will fail, because the retailer would not be considered a «seller» or commercial supplier for the purposes of a strict liability claim. A seller can be found strictly liable for the production or sale of an unreasonably defective or dangerous product if the seller is engaged in the business of selling the product in its normal course of business, and the product was not substantially altered at the time it reached the plaintiff.

Here, although the facts indicate that the tractor was defective and had not been substantially altered between being purchased by the farmer from a retailer and reaching the buyer, the buyer would nonetheless not be able to recover against the auctioneer. Specifically, although the auctioneer sold the tractor and other farm equipment, there is no indication that the auctioneer was otherwise a commercial supplier of tractors. Therefore, the auctioneer would not be liable for the sale of the defective tractor.

A is incorrect. Although the auctioneer sold a defective product to the buyer and would have been liable if the auctioneer a commercial supplier/seller, the auctioneer was not a commercial supplier/seller and would therefore not be liable.

B is incorrect. Although a commercial supplier would have a responsibility to inspect a product before sale, since the auctioneer was not a commercial supplier, he would not have this responsibility. Therefore, the auctioneer would not be liable based on the failure to inspect.

D is incorrect. If the auctioneer was a commercial supplier, the buyer's negligence would not prevent the buyer from holding the auctioneer strictly liable. However, because the auctioneer was not a commercial supplier, the buyer could not recover, and therefore the buyer's negligence is irrelevant.