1. a. Why did the California Supreme Court rule in favor of Navegar in this case?
b. Explain the plaintiffs’ cause of action.
c. Explain the dissenting opinion.
d. Argue that the plaintiffs’ claim did not involve a risk–benefit analysis of the kind forbidden by the California statute.
2. In your opinion, should gun manufacturers be liable for the criminal use of their products? Explain.
3. Some observers argued that a decision for the plaintiffs in the Merrill/Navegar case would have led to a product liability “slippery slope.” Explain that argument. Do you agree with it? Explain.
4. Hollister was badly burned when her shirt came into contact with a burner as she leaned over her electric stove. She sued the store where she bought the shirt, claiming that it was defectively designed. What proof will Hollister need to provide to win her defective design claim?
On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed eight people and wounded six—and then killed himself—during a shooting rampage at 101 California Street, a high-rise office building in San Francisco. Survivors and representatives of some of Ferri’s victims (plaintiffs) sued defendant Navegar, Inc., which made two of the three weapons Ferri used.