37. Does the couple have a viable strict products liability claim against the manufacturer of the RV?

A is correct. Under the economic loss rule, there is no recovery on a strict products liability theory if a defect in a product causes damage only to the product itself, as opposed to personal injury or injury to other property. In such cases, the owner of the damaged product is limited to contract remedies for damage to the product. Here, the RV was the product itself and the facts do not provide that any other personal property was lost in the fire, meaning only the RV was damaged. Thus, the economic loss rule is triggered and the couple is precluded from recovering under strict products liability.

B is incorrect. The absence of negligence on the part of the manufacturer does not provide a basis for denying recovery to the couple on a strict products liability claim. In a strict products liability claim, the seller, distributor, or manufacturer of a defective product would be liable for the plaintiff's injuries from the product regardless of whether there was negligence by any of the parties along the chain of manufacturing.

C is incorrect. Recovery on a strict products liability claim does not depend on whether the evidence supports an inference of the manufacturer's negligence. In strict products liability, the defendant is liable for damages even if they were not negligent.

D is incorrect. The fact pattern does not include any evidence that there was an obvious defect or that the product was defective upon leaving the manufacturer's control. Moreover, because the only damage sustained due to the fire was to the RV itself, the economic loss rule applies. To recover under strict products liability, the defective product must have caused personal injury or property damages. Sustaining damage to the defective product alone is insufficient. Therefore, the couple does not have a viable strict products liability claim.