Asked by Patel Fenil on Jun 17, 2024
Verified
Joe buys a bottle of Coca-Cola.When Joe spots a needle inside the bottle,his buddies dare him to drink the coke.After doing so,Joe suffers physical injury as the needle sticks in his throat.Joe sues Coca-Cola under section 402A;Coca-Cola defends by arguing assumption of risk on Joe's part.Transylvania,however,has eliminated assumption of risk as a separate defense in product liability cases.Instead,it has a comparative fault statute.Under that statute,what is the result of Joe's lawsuit and why? Assume that Coca-Cola would be liable under section 402A.
Comparative Fault
A legal doctrine that reduces the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based lawsuit, based on the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm.
Assumption of Risk
A legal defense that claims an individual voluntarily and knowingly assumed the danger inherent to a risky activity they participated in.
Section 402A
A section of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in American law that addresses the liability of the seller for harm caused by a product despite the absence of a contractual relationship.
- Distinguish among the diverse defenses used in cases of product liability.
- Assess the influence of legal constraints on the assertion of product liability claims.
Verified Answer
SF
Surala FriedmanJun 19, 2024
Final Answer :
Joe would recover the portion of his provable damages not attributable to his own fault.In other words,the fact finder would allocate causal responsibility between Coca-Cola's defect and Joe's assumption of risk,and allow Joe to recover: Joe's provable damages times Coca-Cola's share of the responsibility.Modern comparative fault statutes include assumption of risk within their definition of fault.
Learning Objectives
- Distinguish among the diverse defenses used in cases of product liability.
- Assess the influence of legal constraints on the assertion of product liability claims.