Pat is pledging at the Delta Upsilon Delta (DUD)fraternity in order to become a member.As part of his initiation,he must eat a piece of cheese that is on a mousetrap that has been set to trap a mouse.He tries,but the trap slams shut on his nose,injuring him.Pat files a products liability suit against the hardware store which sold the mousetrap to the fraternity members.Which of the following,if true,would allow the hardware store to avoid liability?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

For a products liability suit, the plaintiff must prove that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. However, if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff’s use of the product was an unforeseeable misuse, they may avoid liability. In this case, it is foreseeable that a mousetrap may injure someone if used improperly, but it may be unforeseeable that someone would use it in this way. The other choices do not necessarily absolve the hardware store of liability. A) The hardware store exercising reasonable care does not mean that the mousetrap was not defective or that it did not cause injury. C) While the manufacturer may also be liable, the hardware store may be liable if they were negligent in selling the defective mousetrap. D) Pat’s status as the purchaser is not relevant to whether the hardware store is liable for selling a defective product.

Pat Is Pledging at the Delta Upsilon Delta (DUD)fraternity in Order