Should the plaintiff prevail on a cause of action based upon strict liability in tort? Why or why not?
| ♥ 0 |
The plaintiff, while driving a van manufactured by the defendant, was struck in the rear by another motor vehicle. Upon impact, the plaintiff’s head was jarred backward against the rear window of the cab, causing the plaintiff serious injury. The van was not equipped with a headrest, and none was required at the time. Should the plaintiff prevail on a cause of action based upon strict liability in tort? Why or why not? |
Explanation
The following are the evidence to support the two arguments:
The plaintiff has the right to ask for protection from defects in the automobile from the defendant as per the provisions of strict liability in torts of restatement law. This is because the automobile is delivered and manufactured by the defendant. The automobile is considered defective because a headrest is required to be assembled, no matter if the general law has guidelines regarding it or not.
The plaintiff cannot ask for the protection against defects in the automobile and make the defendant personally liable because there is no compulsory regulation under the law to install a headrest in an automobile. The defendant can also claim that the plaintiff is negligent toward safety while driving, which causes harm.
Sample Response
The two arguments are as follows:
The plaintiff can sue the defendant under the strict liability in torts provisions because the headrest is missing, which makes the product defective.
The plaintiff cannot sue the defendant under strict liability in torts provisions because a general law is absent related to the headrest in automobiles.
