Tort Of Negligence

From my experience, a person seeks to exercise to stay or become healthier. Hence, if a person is overweight, I find it reasonable to assume that he/she will attempt to exercise to improve his or her health condition. Although only less than 1% of the population has a similar weight as the plaintiff (Judy Dawson), I feel that the exercise bike had inadequate warnings, as the manufacturer didn’t specify the weight limit. Instead, it seems that the manufacturer anticipated that no one over 440 pounds would attempt to ride the exercise bike, which, in my opinion, is a modest assumption. By the same token, a food manufacturer would find unnecessary to label a tuna can informing that it contains fish, just because only 0.4% of the US population is allergic to this type of food (www.foodallergy.org). Nevertheless, this last assumption is not true in the marketplace.
As a result, I hold the opinion that the defendant breached the duty of care.
First, the defendant didn’t exercise reasonable care as it failed to place a warning label stating the weight limitation. Second, this failure caused the plaintiff’s injury. Third, because of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff sustained numerous injuries. Indeed, Clarkson et al. states that “the tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care”. Consequently, I believe that Mrs. Dawson should receive a favorable judgment from the
court.