Reference no: EM132218900

Questions:

1. Paul wants to sue Blair's for his injuries under a theory of product liability. There is no question that the Blair's product caused the damage to Paul and Patty. Paul, in discovery, was able to get a copy of the transcript of the internal Blair's meeting. He also had an expert opine that 16 million Scoville units is unsafe for human consumption.

A. Is there a design defect here that Paul can point to? You can apply either the consumer expectation test or the risk-utility test. Remember, under either test, there has to be a better design that Blair's could have adopted. Fully explain your answer, citing facts as appropriate to support your answer, and clearly setting out the legal principles you applied.

B. Is there a manufacturing defect here that Paul can point to? Fully explain your answer, citing facts as appropriate to support your answer, and clearly setting out the legal principles you applied.

C. Is there a labeling/warning defect here that Paul can point to? Fully explain your answer, citing facts as appropriate to support your answer, and clearly setting out the legal principles you applied.

D. Assuming there is some defect here that made the product unreasonably dangerous, do you believe the facts support any affirmative defenses that will shield Blair's from liability or reduce the amount it owes? Explain your answer fully.

2. Paul also sues Blair's for fraud (reminder: a company can be sued by looking at the actions of its employees). Explain fully whether or not you believe his claim would be successful. Be sure to address each element of fraud in your answer (even if you believe one or more of the elements will not be met). Cite facts provided above to support your analysis.

3. Patty also wants to sue Blair's for strict product liability. She sues Paul for her injuries, but she believes that Blair's also has responsibility for her injuries. Under the law, she can sue both parties.

A. Assume there is a warning label defect that made the product unreasonably dangerous. Did that cause Patty's injury? Explain why or why not.

B. Assume that all the elements of strict product liability are met, but Blair's wants to defend itself by arguing no privity of contract. Will this defense be successful? Why or why not?

C. Assume that all the elements of strict product liability are met, but Blair's wants to defend itself by arguing unforeseeable misuse. Will this defense be successful? Why or why not ?

Attachment:- Discussion.rar