Reference no: EM13658413

Richard Welge loved to sprinkle peanuts on his ice cream sundaes. One day Karen Godfrey, with whom Welge boarded, bought a 24-ounce vacuum-sealed plastic-capped glass jar of peanuts at a convenience store in Chicago. To obtain a $2 rebate that the manufacturer was offering to anyone who bought a ?oparty?? item, such as peanuts, Godfrey needed proof of her purchase from the jar of peanuts. Using an Exacto knife, she removed the part of the label that contained the bar code. She then placed the jar on top of the refrigerator. About a week later, Welge removed the plastic seal from the jar, uncapped it, took some peanuts, replaced the cap, and returned the jar to the top of the refrigerator, all without incident. 
A week later, Welge took down the jar, removed the plastic cap, spilled some peanuts into his left hand to put on his sundae, and replaced the cap with his right hand. But as he pushed the cap down on the open jar, the jar shattered. His hand was severely cut and is now, he claims, permanently impaired. 
Welge brought suit and named three defendants: the convenience store, the manufacturer of the peanuts, and the manufacturer of the jar itself. From whom will Welge be able to recover? On what theories? What defenses, if any, are available to the defendants?