Question: 1. Jack Clark was eating a chicken enchilada at Mexicali Rose restaurant when he swallowed a chicken bone. The bone lodged in his throat and had to be removed in the emergency room of a local hospital. What is the primary factor that will determine whether Mr. Clark's product liability lawsuit is successful?
2. Five people died of carbon monoxide poisoning from a gas heater that had been improperly installed in a cabin by the owner, who had not extended the vent pipe far enough above the roofline. The instruction manual stated that the pipe had to be vented outside, but did not specify how far outside the vent pipe should extend, other than having a drawing that showed it extending beyond the roofline. The manual also said, "Warning: To ensure compliance with local codes, have installed by a gas or utility inspector." Do the decedents' estates have a product liability action for failure to warn? Why or why not?
3. The plaintiff was injured when a fire extinguisher failed to work when it was needed to put out a fire. Could the defendant manufacturer of the fire extinguisher raise the defense of contributory negligence against the plaintiff if the plaintiff's negligence started the fire? Why or why not?
4. Mattie was injured when she lost control of the car she was driving because of a tire blowout. The tire was guaranteed by the manufacturer "against failure from blowouts." The guarantee also limited the manufacturer's liability to repair or replacement of any defective tire. Can Mattie sue under strict liability breach of warranty and recover damages for her injury? Why or why not?
5. Bob was waiting at the crosswalk for the light to turn green. As he stood there, a car that was stopped in the road next to him suddenly exploded, and Bob was injured by the blast. A defect in the engine caused the explosion. Will Bob be able to bring a strict product liability action against the manufacturer of the engine?
6. National Bank was deciding whether to loan money to Pateo Corporation. It asked Pateo to provide a copy of the company's most recent audit. While doing the audit, the auditors, Hamble & Humphries, failed to follow up on evidence indicating that one of the firm's managing partners might be siphoning money out of the corporation's funds. Relying on the audit, the bank made the loan. Six months later Pateo went into bankruptcy, primarily because one partner had stolen funds from the corporation and had then fled the country. Can the bank bring an action against Hamble & Humphries? Why is your answer dependent on the state in which the case arose?