8/3/2019 Liability Sample

1/2

1. Pat has just purchased a new suit for work from Melvins.

The suit was madeby Suitco from a new material called nouveau

fiber. The fiber is actually a recycled element of petroleum.

The salesperson described the fiber as ?the best and most

comfortable stuff ever invented. I own one and it?s cool and

comfortable.? The first time Pat wore his suit to work he broke

out in a serious rash and had to be hospitalized. May Pat

recover for his injuries from either Melvin?s or Suitco? Discuss

the theory or theories that Pat could use against each

defendant. What defenses are available? Discuss fully.

Answer: Pat could attempt to proceed on breach of

warranty, negligence or strict liability against both Melvin and

Suitco. An implied warranty of merchantability existed by virtue

of the sale, and the salesperson also made an express warranty

regarding the suit. Whether Pat could proceed against Melvins

based only upon a strict liability claim depends upon whether

the jurisdiction involved allows such suits to proceed against a

seller if the manufacturer is available. A significant issue is

the percentage of consumers who would break out in a rash. If

the number is high, then the defendants would likely be liable

for breach of warranty and also for a claim based upon strict

liability. Additionally, if the defendants either knew or should

have known of problems with the fabric, they would be liable in

negligence. If, however, Pat had a very unusual and

unforeseeable reaction, it is possible that the defendants would

not be liable under any theory.

Note: This is a minimally correct answer. To get a highgrade, you would state the elements of warranty, negligence and

strict liability and explain how each theory does or does not

apply to this case.

2. Paula recently went to see her doctor for severe glaucoma.

He told her that her vision is in danger and prescribed Seerite

made by Drugco. Seerite was the newest and most promising

treatment for glaucoma that exists. The product literature

stated, When used as directed, Seerite is 100% safe andeffective for glaucoma. After Paula read this she put the

literature in the trash. She overlooked a small statement on the

back reading Warning: in 2% of the population this product may

produce uncontrollable weight gain. Three weeks after using

Seerite, Paula had gained 50 pounds and continued to gain weight

rapidly. Paula has stopped using Seerite, but she cannot lose

the weight and this condition is now a separate health risk. Is

8/3/2019 Liability Sample

2/2

Seerite a defectively designed drug? What defenses would be

available to Drugco against this claim? Is there any other

theory under product liability law that Paula may use to recover

against Drugco? Discuss fully.

ANSWER: If the societal value of using an inherently

dangerous product outweighs the risk of harm from its use, the

manufacturer may be exonerated from liability for sale of such

an unavoidably unsafe product. Seerite would likely be

determined to be an unavoidably unsafe product. Even with an

unavoidably unsafe product, however, the manufacturer must give

a proper warning. The warning provided by the drug company was

probably not sufficiently prominent. Paula would have a cause of

action in strict liability based upon the failure to provide an

adequate warning. Paula could also investigate a cause of action

for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. An issue

would be the number of people adversely affected and whether the

drug was fit for its ordinary purpose.

Note: Again, you want to explain the elements of strict

liability and of warranty for a complete answer.