The plaintiff was diagnosed as having a cervical strain and multiple contusions. She filed suit against Walmart and DP. Explain whether the plaintiff should prevail.
The plaintiff’s children purchased an Aero Cycle exercise bike for their mother to use in a weight-loss program. The Aero Cycle bike was manufactured by DP and purchased from Walmart. The first time the plaintiff, Judy Dunne, used the bike, she used it only for a few seconds. But the second time she used it, she pedaled for three or four rotations when the rear support strut failed and the bike collapsed under her. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff weighed between 450 and 500 pounds. She fell off the bike backward, struck her head on a nearby metal file cabinet, and was knocked unconscious. When the plaintiff regained consciousness, her mouth was bleeding and her neck, left shoulder, arm, leg, knee, and ankle were injured. The plaintiff was diagnosed as having a cervical strain and multiple contusions. She filed suit against Walmart and DP. Explain whether the plaintiff should prevail.
This case contains the code of defective condition and failure to warn. The trial court decides that it is not reasonable that a woman weighing 500 pounds may use this cycle to exercise.
Individual DP, the manufacturer of Product A.c, states that adults weighing up to 250 pounds can use the product since Product A.c is greater than 98.5 percent of Country U's. Individual DP also sticks to the standards mentioned in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). However, Individual DP is not automatically discharged of liability because the product adheres to the standards of ASTM since standards are not the conclusion of liability.
After this, the trial court committed the legal error in the reasons for the judgment. Instead of considering whether Individual P was busy in persuasively expected use, the trial court considered Individual P was a persuasively expected user. There was no misuse of the product by the Individual P in this case. According to the evidence, Individual P used the product in a wholly consistent and conscious manner. The exercise cycle is advertised to overweight individuals by Individual DP. Individual P is an overweight person who is targeted by Individual DP. Additionally, Individual P had no reason to know whether the Product A.c would not sustain their weight since earlier they had used a similar product for several years without any incident.
The fact is that Individual P is overweight and Individual DP is not responsible for placing in the manual the category of 450-500 pound people.
The next problem is whether Individual DP was in need to place a weight limit warning on cycle. The manual contains detailed information about the use of the product along with the weight limit. Individual DP can advertise the use the cycle for a limited purpose only. Individual P proved that Individual DP failed to exercise reasonable care by failing to place a limited use warning of the Product A.c.
Individual DP is not accountable for accounting for every imaginable anticipated use of the product but is answerable for the destruction caused by the use or handling of the product, which Individual DP can expect from Individual F, provided that Individual F is an ordinary person in the same conditions.
Company W is also accountable as the merchant seller of the malfunctioning product.