What was the result in the text's case involving a plaintiff who suffered permanent liver damage as a result of drinking a glass of wine with a Tylenol capsule?
A) For plaintiff, because no comparative negligence was found.
B) For plaintiff, because the degree of potential harm was substantial and it would have been easy to place a warning on the product label.
C) For defendant, because it had no duty to warn.
D) For defendant, because there was no proof of market share.
E) For defendant, because the plaintiff's adverse reaction from the ingestion of only one capsule was extremely rare.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The correct choice is for the plaintiff because the degree of potential harm from combining the product with alcohol was substantial, and it would have been relatively simple and cost-effective to include a warning on the product label, alerting consumers to the potential risks.

What Was the Result in the Text's Case Involving a Plaintiff