However, there was no evidence that the footrest involved was manufactured defectively. The action is based on a theory of strict liability. Who wins? Why?

Jump to Solution
Category:

However, there was no evidence that the footrest involved was manufactured defectively. The action is based on a theory of strict liability. Who wins? Why?

0
0

Patient was injured when the footrest of an adjustable X-ray table collapsed, causing Patient to fall to the floor. G.E. manufactured the X-ray table and the footrest. At trial, evidence was introduced that G.E. had manufactured for several years another footrest model complete with safety latches. However, there was no evidence that the footrest involved was manufactured defectively. The action is based on a theory of strict liability. Who wins? Why?

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

The patient who faced the damages is going to prevail. Company G is going to be held responsible, by the court, for making the defective x-ray tray; a lack in the use of safety latches in the manufacturing of an x-ray tray caused damage to the patient. Even if there are no previous records of failure, it is still possible that there is a flaw in the design of the product.

Verified Answer

The decision is going to be in favor of the patient because Company G is going to be held liable for the design defect in the product.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.