Chat with AI
Business Law 12th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller ,Frank Cross
Edition 12ISBN: 978-1111530594Business Law 12th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller ,Frank Cross
Edition 12ISBN: 978-1111530594 Exercise 4
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Dangerous Products.
Susan Calles lived with her four daughters, Amanda, age eleven, Victoria, age five, and Jenna and Jillian, age three. In March 1998, Calles bought an Aim N Flame utility lighter, which she stored on the top shelf of her kitchen cabinet. A trigger can ignite the Aim N Flame after an "ON/OFF" switch is slid to the "on" position. On the night of March 31, Calles and Victoria left to get videos. Jenna and Jillian were in bed, and Amanda was watching television. Calles returned to find fire trucks and emergency vehicles around her home. Robert. Finn, a fire investigator determined that Jenna had started a fire using the lighter. Jillian suffered smoke inhalation, was hospitalized, and dial on April 21. Calles filed a suit in an Illinois state court against Scripto-Tokai Corp., which distributed the Aim N Flame, and others. In her suit, which was grounded, in part, in strict liability claims, Calles alleged that the lighter was an "unreasonably dangerous product." Scripto filed a motion for summary judgment. [ Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill.2d 247 864 N.E.2d 249, 309 Ill.Dec. 383 (2007)]
(a) A product is unreasonably dangerous when it is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer. Whose expectation-Calles's or Jenna's-applies? Does the lighter pass this test? Explain.
(b) Calles presented evidence as to the likelihood and seriousness of injury from lighters that do not have child-safety devices. Scripto argued that the Aim N Flame is an alternative source of fire and is safer than a match. Calles admitted that she knew the dangers presented by fighters in the hands of children. Scripto admitted that it had been a defendant in several suits for injuries under similar circumstances. How should the court rule? Why?
Susan Calles lived with her four daughters, Amanda, age eleven, Victoria, age five, and Jenna and Jillian, age three. In March 1998, Calles bought an Aim N Flame utility lighter, which she stored on the top shelf of her kitchen cabinet. A trigger can ignite the Aim N Flame after an "ON/OFF" switch is slid to the "on" position. On the night of March 31, Calles and Victoria left to get videos. Jenna and Jillian were in bed, and Amanda was watching television. Calles returned to find fire trucks and emergency vehicles around her home. Robert. Finn, a fire investigator determined that Jenna had started a fire using the lighter. Jillian suffered smoke inhalation, was hospitalized, and dial on April 21. Calles filed a suit in an Illinois state court against Scripto-Tokai Corp., which distributed the Aim N Flame, and others. In her suit, which was grounded, in part, in strict liability claims, Calles alleged that the lighter was an "unreasonably dangerous product." Scripto filed a motion for summary judgment. [ Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill.2d 247 864 N.E.2d 249, 309 Ill.Dec. 383 (2007)]
(a) A product is unreasonably dangerous when it is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer. Whose expectation-Calles's or Jenna's-applies? Does the lighter pass this test? Explain.
(b) Calles presented evidence as to the likelihood and seriousness of injury from lighters that do not have child-safety devices. Scripto argued that the Aim N Flame is an alternative source of fire and is safer than a match. Calles admitted that she knew the dangers presented by fighters in the hands of children. Scripto admitted that it had been a defendant in several suits for injuries under similar circumstances. How should the court rule? Why?
Explanation
Verified
Verified
a) The expectation is for an ordinary co...
Business Law 12th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller ,Frank Cross
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
