Kolchek Negligence Case
1. I believe there are 3 theories that relate to product liability in which Kolchek could sue to recover for Litishas’s injuries.
They are;
+ Product liability based on misrepresentation because the misrepresentation is of a material fact, and the seller intended to induce the buyer’s reliance on the misrepresentation.
+Product Liability based on negligence because there clearly a failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable, prudent person would have exercised under the circumstance.
+No assumption of risk because the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk created by the product defect and the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, even though it was unreasonable to do so.
-Kolchek will be UNABLE to sue Porter but is able to sue Great Lakes. …show more content…
When product liability is based on a negligence act then then there is no privity of the contract required.
Also the plaintiff and the defendant need to be directly involved in a contractual agreement with one another
Lastly, in this case the manufacturer is liable for failure to exercise care to any person who sustains an injury caused by a defective product.
3. 1. The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it.
2. The defendant must engage in selling or distributing the product.
3. The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective condition.
4. The plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by the use or consumption of the product
5. The defective condition must be the main cause of the injury or damage
6. Goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury occurred.
4. There are a few possible defenses which are may be brought forward by either Porter or Great Lakes, they are;
-Assumption of Risk.
- Product Misuse.
-Danger which is already known (Common).
-Negligence (Fault).
Who should
They are;
+ Product liability based on misrepresentation because the misrepresentation is of a material fact, and the seller intended to induce the buyer’s reliance on the misrepresentation.
+Product Liability based on negligence because there clearly a failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable, prudent person would have exercised under the circumstance.
+No assumption of risk because the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk created by the product defect and the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, even though it was unreasonable to do so.
-Kolchek will be UNABLE to sue Porter but is able to sue Great Lakes. …show more content…
When product liability is based on a negligence act then then there is no privity of the contract required.
Also the plaintiff and the defendant need to be directly involved in a contractual agreement with one another
Lastly, in this case the manufacturer is liable for failure to exercise care to any person who sustains an injury caused by a defective product.
3. 1. The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it.
2. The defendant must engage in selling or distributing the product.
3. The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective condition.
4. The plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by the use or consumption of the product
5. The defective condition must be the main cause of the injury or damage
6. Goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury occurred.
4. There are a few possible defenses which are may be brought forward by either Porter or Great Lakes, they are;
-Assumption of Risk.
- Product Misuse.
-Danger which is already known (Common).
-Negligence (Fault).
Who should