The plaintiff RM’s son died due to the swallowing of a toy block made by the defendant company P on which there was no warning. The plaintiff filed a suit of negligence against the defendant. The defendant applied for summary judgment contending that the hazard was foreseeable. To Explain : The manner in which plaintiff’s attorney would have served the process (the summons and complaint ) on the defendant.

Question

Thelma purchased a used truck from Hall that had been manufactured by International Harvester. To work on the truck engine, Thelma had to have the cab of the truck raised. When it was so raised, the cab fell unexpectedly and fatally injured Thelma. Suit was brought for her wrongful death against Hall and International Harvester. The suit was based on theories of negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranty. The defense was raised that there was no liability because the sale to Thelma had been made “as is” and the truck was a used truck. Were these defenses valid?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 2RE

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The plaintiff RM’s son died due to the swallowing of a toy block made by the defendant company P on which there was no warning. The plaintiff filed a suit of negligence against the defendant. The defendant applied for summary judgment contending that the hazard was foreseeable.

To Explain: The manner in which plaintiff’s attorney would have served the process (the summons and complaint ) on the defendant.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Thelma purchased a used truck from Hall that had been manufactured by International Harvester. To work on the truck engine, Thelma had to have the cab of the truck raised. When it was so raised, the cab fell unexpectedly and fatally injured Thelma. Suit was brought for her wrongful death against Hall and International Harvester. The suit was based on theories of negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranty. The defense was raised that there was no liability because the sale to Thelma had been made “as is” and the truck was a used truck. Were these defenses valid?

A gasoline-powered lawn mower that had been used earlier to cut grass was left unattended next to a water heater that had been manufactured by Sears. Expert testimony was presented to demonstrate that vapors from the mower’s gas tank accumulated under the water heater and resulted in an explosion. Three-year-old Shawn Toups was injured as a result. Evidence was also presented negating any claim that Shawn had been handling the gasoline can located nearby or the lawn mower. He was not burned on the soles of his feet or the palms of his hands, and, similarly, the gas can remained in an upright position even after the explosion. Is Sears liable to the Toups in strict product liability? Explain.

At Whirlpool’s manufacturing plant in Ohio, overhead conveyors transported household appliance components throughout the plant. A wire mesh screen was positioned below the conveyors to catch falling components and debris. Maintenance employees frequently had to stand on the screens to clean them. Whirlpool began installing heavier wire because several employees had fallen partly through the old screens, and one had fallen completely through to the plant floor. At this time, the company warned workers to walk only on the frames beneath the wire but not on the wire itself. Before the heavier wire had been completely installed, a worker fell to his death through the old screen. A short time after this incident, Deemer and Cornwell, two plant employees, met with the plant safety director to discuss the mesh, to voice their concerns, and to obtain the name, address, and telephone number of the local Occupational Safety and Health Administration representative. The next day, the two…