John Clark purchased a paintball gun at a pawn shop and then participated in a community sport of shooting paintball guns at cars. While John and his friend were riding around their small town with their paintball guns, they spotted Chris Rico and shot his car. Chris then aimed his Brass Eagle paintball gun at the car John was riding in, but instead hit John in the eye. John required surgery on his eye that evening and filed suit against Brass Eagle under a theory of strict tort liability. Brass Eagle responded by stating that its gun was not defective and that the young men had ignored warnings about the need to wear eye protection when using the guns. John said he purchased his gun used and was not given all the packaging and instructions. Brass Eagle says that its gun was not defective and that it functioned as it was supposed to. John says the guns are inherently dangerous.
Who should be responsible for the injury?
Are paintball guns defective if they can harm individuals?
How should the courts allocate the risk and loss on products such as these?