Business

A. Warranties

1. Irma Virgil purchased a pint-sized thermos bottle. After a few uses she poured coffee into it and added milk when it imploded causing the hot coffee and glass injury to her face and eye. She did not damage the product. Irma sues due to claims and breach of merchantability.

2. From these facts, the plaintiff can sue the manufacturer for negligence for the compensation of her sustained injuries.

3. This includes the defendant owing a duty of care to the plaintiff, defendant’s breach of that duty, legally recognizable injury suffered by the plaintiff, and proof that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the defendants’ breach of duty.

4. Those who make sell, or lease goods can be held liable for physical harm or property damage caused by those goods to a consumer, user, of bystander. This is called product liability. Which may be based on warranty theories, as well as on the theories of negligence, misrepresentation, and strict liability. We look here at the product liability based on negligence and on misrepresentation.

Proof of injury to recover damages, the plaintiff in a tort lawsuit must prove that they suffered a legally recognizable injury, Since Irma sustained face and eye injuries, the proof exists in this case.

5. Based on these facts of this case, the company should be held liable for its negligence and Irma should be awarded damages for her injuries.

6. Supporting Case Schmude v. Tricam Industries. Kevin Schmude was standing on an eight-foot ladder that he had purchased, it collapsed and he was seriously injured. He filed a lawsuit against the ladder company based on a manufacturing defect. Experts testified that the preexisting holes in the ladder’s top cap did not properly line up with the holes in the rear right rail and backing plate. As a result of the misalignment, the rivet at the rear legs of the ladder was more likely to fail. A jury concluded that a manufacturing defect made the ladder unreasonably...