24. If, at the conclusion of the evidence, both parties move for directed verdicts, how should the trial judge rule?

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.

D correct. To recover under a strict liability claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. Here, a reasonable jury could determine that the blender was defective at the time of sale because the accident which occurred is the sort of accident that ordinarily occurs as a result of a defect and no other cause was identified, although it is not required to do so. In addition, a reasonable jury could also believe the manufacturer's expert's conclusion that the blender was not defective, but again it would not be required to do so. Therefore, the judge should deny both parties' motion for a directed verdict, because a reasonable jury could (but is not obligated to) believe either party.

A is incorrect. A reasonable jury could find for the manufacturer because the consumer's expert was unable to specify the nature of the defect. However, it would not be required to do so, because it could also reach the opposite conclusion and find for the consumer based on a conclusion that the blender was defective at the time of sale because the accident which occurred is the sort of accident that ordinarily occurs as a result of a defect and no other cause was identified. Therefore, the manufacturer would not be entitled to a directed verdict, because a jury could reasonably find for the consumer.

B is incorrect. The fact that the consumer brought a strict liability claim would not be a basis for a directed verdict for the manufacturer. The facts as presented would support a strict liability claim. Further, a reasonable jury could conclude that the consumer had supported a strict liability claim based on a finding that the blender was defective at the time of sale.

C is incorrect. A reasonable jury could find for the consumer on the basis that the blender was new when the jar shattered, and thus was defective. However, the jury would not be required to do so, and could instead believe the manufacturer's expert that the blender was not defective. Therefore, the consumer would not be entitled to a directed verdict, because a reasonable jury could believe either the consumer or the manufacturer.