Case Study:
Eddington operated a toy store in Coos Bay as a limited liability company and carried merchandise from both domestic as well as foreign manufacturers. As the holiday season approached, he found that he could reduce his costs by importing stuffed toys from a newly developing country in Africa rather than from the Chinese manufacturer he had been dealing with satisfactorily for many years. As it turns out, one of the stuffed toys had dangerous stuffing material in it and caused serious harm to a young child when the family dog chewed through the outer covering and then the young child chewed on the stuffing. The family has brought suit against the toy store and Eddington personally to recover its medical expenses and for pain and suffering, since some of the young child’s injuries will cause permanent brain damage. Eddington claims that he was unaware of the defects in the toy because he did not manufacture but only sold the toy and the manufacturer told him that the toy met international standards. It turns out that the Consumer Product Safety Commission had issued a warning on stuffed toys coming out of this African country, but Eddington had never checked the CPSC website and was unaware of this. Oregon has adopted strict liability by statute.
- Can the family recover against the toy store and, if so, on what theory?
- Can the family recover against Eddington, and if so, on what theory?
- What defenses do Eddington and the toy store have to the family’s claims?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.