In Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the maker of a safety net for failure to warn, the Iowa high court held that:
A) the makers had no duty to warn because the danger was obvious
B) the makers had a poorly designed set of instructions
C) the case could be dismissed because the warnings were adequate
D) produced products that should never have been placed on the market because they are so dangerous that warnings are unhelpful
E) none of the other choices
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q262: The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product
Q263: In Parish v. ICON, where a person
Q264: To avoid being sued for failure to
Q265: Risk-utility balancing refers to the fact that:
A)
Q266: If the manufacturer provides adequate warnings, as
Q268: When considering the risk-utility balance, courts consider:
A)
Q269: The Restatement (Third) of Torts on product
Q270: In Parish v. ICON, where a person
Q271: The Restatement (Third) of Torts refers to
Q272: In Parish v. ICON, where a person
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents