Discussion Question One Due Day 2 Wed Mary is cutting weeds at her home She is unable to trim some weeds she finds because they grew between the rocks so she removes the protective guard on the weed trimmer and trims the weeds There are no warnings on the weed trimmer advising against removing the guard She hits a rock which is thrown to the side hitting her neighbor in the eye and causing permanent damage What kind of tort claim does the neighbor have Who are the possible defendants Your carefully edited response should be a minimum of 350 words and posted to the thread titled Week Two Discussion Question One Thread in the Main forum The neighbor can claim Res Ipsa Loquitur the thing speaks for itself and sue Mary This means the defendant in this case Mary had exclusive control of the situation that caused the plaintiff s injury If Mary did not remove the protective guard from the weed trimmer this accident would not have ordinarily occurred but because of Mary s negligence and removing the protective guard the neighbor s eye is permanently damaged Mary however can sue the manufacturer of the weed trimmer and claim failure to warn Failure to warn as per our reading in chapter 6 states a defect that occurs when a manufacturer does not place a warning on the packaging of products that could cause injury if the danger is unknown In other words had Mary been warned not to remove the protective guard because it might cause danger she would not have removed it therefore not causing permanent eye damage to the neighbor The manufacturer on the other hand might defend themselves by claiming Supervening event claiming Mary modified the weed trimmer by removing the guard which is what caused the accident If proven a manufacturer is not liable when the product has been altered or modified after it leaves the seller s possession and therefore relieved from product liability Second response In this case above the tort claims fall under the tort strict liability and in addition fall into the intentional negligence tort on the part of the manufacturer Under the strict liability tort in order recover the party who was injured must show that the product was defective and caused the injury Under the strict liability tort the defects fall into four categories defect in manufacture defect in design failure to warn and defect in packaging UoP 2010 p 108 In this case the manufacturer failed to warn Mary and or place warning labels on the weed trimmers about removing the protective guard causing injury In this type of tort there can be a multiple of defendants in this case the defendants are the Manufacturer negligent the distributer the retailer and the consumer Mary In this case the manufacturer and the distributer had a duty to warn by placing warning labels on the product in the event the protective guard is removed from the weed trimmers p 109 The possible consequences are to be listed on the warning labels to inform the consumer of the possible injuries that can occur If the warning label had been placed on the weed trimmer then the manufacturer distributer and retailer would not be deemed defendants in the lawsuit But this failed to happen and in the event of the failure to warn of the dangers of removing the protective guard this supports the strict liability action p 109 However this would not prevent Mary from being sued and liable for the damages to her neighbor Monetary damages would be paid to Mary s neighbor by Mary This case could also be argued on the grounds of generally known dangers which may not prove that the manufacturer distributer and retailer as liable in this case because the protect guard was there for a reason and Mary removed this from the weed trimmer p 110 In addition the argument could be proven on the misuse of the product therefore relieving the manufacturer distributer and retailer of liability and Mary completely liable for all damages for removing the protective guard from the trimmers p 111