Abstract
This paper will consider several legal issues presented by this scenario: Is the Whip-it! a defective product? Is the manufacturer or the seller of the Whip-it! liable for not properly warning a prospective plaintiff about the dangers inherent in the use of the product? Is Walter a foreseeable user of the product? Has the plaintiff misused the product to such an extent that he or she would be unable to recover for any injuries? Would any other defenses be potentially available to the defendant? These questions will be analyzed in the context of Starn v. Smoke Island and Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc.
Highlights
Consider this s cenario: Walter Ryker is a thirty-two year old advertising account executive
The area of law termed products liab ility is a mixture of both contract law and tort law. (Adapted from Hunter, Amoroso & Shannon, 2012a)
A design defect—that is characteristic of a whole product line; or
Summary
Consider this s cenario: Walter Ryker is a thirty-two year old advertising account executive. There were three theories under which a plaintiff could bring a suit for personal injury or property damage allegedly caused by a defective product. “An y action against a manufacturer or seller for recovery of damages arising out of personal injury, death, or property damage allegedly caused by a defective product whether the action is based in strict tort liability, s trict product liability, negligence, misrepresentation, breach of express or implied warranty, or any other theory or combination of theories.” (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended , 1987). Bloomfield Motors (1960), which saw the expansion of liability (horizontal privity) under the warranty of merchantability to persons other than the consumer/buyer
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
