8. Will the plaintiff prevail?

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, the assumption of risk may be a defense when 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. Under a products liability claim based on a strict liability theory, a commercial supplier can be held strictly liable for the production or sale of a product which is in a defective condition or is unreasonably dangerous to the user based on a design or manufacturing defect. A type of design defect is an inadequate warning which does not have clear and complete warnings that may not be apparent to users.

Here, the car manufacturer is clearly a commercial supplier and they provided an unreasonably dangerous product without adequate warnings. Specifically, the manufacturer created a high-powered sports car and marketed for its ability to travel at high speeds. However, although the car was designed with the capability of reaching speeds more than 100 miles per hour, it was equipped with tires only tested and designed to safely reach a maximum speed of 85 miles per hour. Further, the manufacturer failed to adequately warn users of this danger, as while the owner's manual informed users that high-speed capability tires were necessary to drive continuously more than 90 miles per hour, it did not provide a warning that the car was not equipped with high-speed capability tires, and therefore could not travel safely at higher speeds. Therefore, the inadequate warning by the car manufacturer was a defect and the manufacturer could be held strictly liable for the plaintiff's resulting injury.

A is incorrect. The plaintiff would not be barred from recovering against the manufacturer on the basis that the plaintiff's driving more than the speed limit was a misuse of the car and/or negligent behavior. 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.

B is incorrect. The manufacturer failed to give proper directions and specific warnings of the unreasonably dangerous condition presented by the lack of high-speed capable tires provided with the vehicle. Therefore, because there was a defect that caused the plaintiff's injury, she could hold the manufacturer strictly liable.

D is incorrect. Despite violating speed limits being negligent behavior, it would not bar the plaintiff from holding the manufacturer strictly liable. Although the plaintiff was negligent, she did not assume the risk of injury, because she was unaware that the car was unreasonably dangerous due to the inadequate warning.