Below is legal case for homework questions. Below the legal case is the homework questions I need help with. 
Daniell v. Ford

 

581 F. Supp. 728 U.S. District Court, New Mexico 1984 

Facts

See the chapter opener. Connie Daniell argued that Ford was both

1. negligent because it did not warn her that there was no opening mechanism in the trunk and
2. strictly liable for this design defect. Ford sought summary judgment.

Issue

Was Ford negligent in failing to warn Connie of the missing latch? Was Ford strictly liable for a design defect?

Excerpts from Judge Baldock’s Decision

Under strict products liability or negligence, a manufacturer has a duty to consider only those risks of injury which are foreseeable. A risk is not foreseeable by a manufacturer where a product is used in a manner which could not reasonably be anticipated by the manufacturer and that use is the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff’s injury would not be foreseeable by the manufacturer.

The purposes of an automobile trunk are to transport, stow, and secure the automobile spare tire, luggage, and other goods and to protect those items from elements of the weather. The design features of an automobile trunk make it well near impossible that an adult intentionally would enter the trunk and close the lid. The dimensions of a trunk, the height of its sill and its load floor are among the design features which encourage closing and latching the trunk lid while standing outside the vehicle. The plaintiff’s use of the trunk compartment as a means to attempt suicide was an unforeseeable use. Therefore, the manufacturer had no duty to design an internal release or opening mechanism that might have prevented this occurrence.

Nor did the manufacturer have a duty to warn the plaintiff of the danger of her conduct, given the plaintiff’s unforeseeable use of the product. The risk is obvious. There is no duty to warn of known dangers in strict products liability or tort. Moreover, the potential efficacy of any warning, given the plaintiff’s use of the automobile trunk compartment for a deliberate suicide attempt, is questionable.

The automobile trunk was not defective under these circumstances. The automobile trunk was not unreasonably dangerous within the contemplation of the ordinary consumer or user of such a trunk when used in the ordinary ways and for the ordinary purposes for which such a trunk is used.

The defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

 

Homework questions:

a. One of the plaintiff's claims is that the defendant, Ford, was negligent in failing to warn her that there was no opening mechanism inside the trunk. What are the five elements of a case of action for negligence and how will the plaintiff try to satisfy each of the elements?

 

b. Plaintiff claims that Ford is under Strict Product Liability for designing the trunk without an interior release or opening mechanism. List the elements of a cause of action for Strict Product Liability as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts and explain how the plaintiff will try to satisfy each of these elements?

 

c. What defense did the defendant assert to the defective design claim in this case?

 

d. What defense did the defendant assert to the failure to warn claim in this case?

 

e. Who won this case? Do you agree with this result?