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.
28. Should the manufacturer's motion be granted?
The child's representative brought an action for damages against the manufacturer of the vaporizer. The manufacturer moved to dismiss after the representative presented the evidence above.
One night, the child got out of bed to get a drink of water and tripped over the cord of the vaporizer as she crossed the room. The top of the vaporizer separated from the base, and boiling water from the jar spilled on the child when the vaporizer tipped over. The child suffered serious burns as a consequence.
The mother used the vaporizer whenever the child was suffering from congestion. She placed the vaporizer on the floor near the child's bed.
The booklet that accompanied the vaporizer read: «This product is safe, spillproof, and practically foolproof. It shuts off automatically when the water is gone.» The booklet had a picture of a vaporizer sending steam over a baby's crib.
Upon the recommendation of her child's pediatrician, a mother purchased a vaporizer for her child, who had been suffering from respiratory congestion. The vaporizer consisted of a gallon-size glass jar, which held water to be heated until it became steam, and a metal heating unit into which the jar fit. The jar was covered by a plastic cap with an opening to allow the steam to escape. At the time the vaporizer was manufactured and sold, there was no safer alternative design.
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 type of products liability claim, typically based on strict liability, is for misrepresentations by manufacturers/suppliers. In order for a plaintiff to recover damages, the misrepresentation must have been a misrepresentation of a material fact concerning the quality or character of the product, and the plaintiff must have been injured after relying on this misrepresentation.
A is correct. The manufacturer's motion to dismiss should not be granted, because a reasonable jury could find that the manufacturer expressly warranted that the vaporizer was spillproof. Here, the vaporizer manufacturer included a booklet with the product which expressly represented that the vaporizer was «safe» and «spillproof.» Accompanying these statements was an illustration depicting the vaporizer safely steaming near a child's bed. The child's mother could argue that this was a misrepresentation about the product's safety, she relied upon this misrepresentation, and that her child was injured as a result. Therefore, because the mother could prevail on a misrepresentation claim against the manufacturer, the manufacturer's motion to dismiss should be denied.
B is incorrect. Although the manufacturer's motion to dismiss should not be granted, that the child was injured would not in itself be a basis for imposing liability, because the fact that a product poses a danger to a user or a bystander will not support the manufacturer's liability in the absence of negligence, defect, or misrepresentation. However, the facts support a misrepresentation claim, as the manufacturer expressly promised that the vaporizer was «safe» and «spillproof» and supplemented these assertions with a picture showing the vaporizer operating safely. If the child's mother argued that she relied upon these misrepresentations, she could potentially recover against the manufacturer.
C is incorrect. Even if it should have been obvious to the mother that the water in the jar would become boiling hot, this would not necessarily cut short the manufacturer's liability. The mother could be found to have reasonably relied upon the manufacturer's express promise that the vaporizer was «safe» and «spillproof,» especially when those assurances were combined with a picture which suggested that the vaporizer could be safely placed near a child's bed. Even if the mother understood the water would be boiling, she could nonetheless have believed that the boiling water posed no danger if it could not be spilled. Therefore, the mother could still recover on a misrepresentation claim.
D is incorrect. While the absence of a safer alternative design would doom a design defect claim, it does not relieve the manufacturer of all liability. Despite finding no «defects,» a reasonable fact-finder could find that the mother should recover because she relied on the manufacturer's material misrepresentations that the vaporizer was «safe» and «spillproof.»