John Hall tried to unclog a floor drain in the kitchen of the restaurant where he worked. He used a drain cleaner called Zap’s Blue Lye that contained crystalline sodium hydroxide (the chemical name for lye). The product label said to wear eye protection, to put one tablespoon of lye directly into the drain, and to keep one’s face away from the drain because there could be a dangerous backsplash. Without eye protection, Hall mixed three tablespoons of the lye with water and poured that mixture down the drain while bending over it. Liquid splashed back into his face, causing injury.

He brought a product liability suit based on design defects and inadequate warning. At trial, an expert for Hall stated that the product was defective because it had a tendency to the backsplash. Witnesses for the company testified that lye is the most effective chemical drain cleaner and that there is no way to create an effective drain cleaner with lye and eliminate the risk of backsplash. The company executives testified that this inability to eliminate backsplash was the reason for the warning label.

  
 
 

Transcribed Image Text:

To prove a design defect, Hall must prove: select answer design of the manufacturer to not adopt the • There was • The decision design was select answer ▼ According to the witness for the company, there select answer a reasonable alternative design for the cleaner. If there is no alternative design for the product, most courts will engage in a select answer of the product. In this case, the court agreed with the company witnesses that the select answer outweigh the select answer prevent the harm through a safer design, then the manufacturer: select answer If there is no way to reasonably . According to the To prove a design defect, Hall must prove: select answer design of the manufacturer to not adopt the • There was • The decision design was select answer ▼ According to the witness for the company, there select answer a reasonable alternative design for the cleaner. If there is no alternative design for the product, most courts will engage in a select answer of the product. In this case, the court agreed with the company witnesses that the select answer outweigh the select answer prevent the harm through a safer design, then the manufacturer: select answer If there is no way to reasonably . According to the

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The detailed answer for the above question is provided below There was Defective design The decision of the manufacturer to not adopt the design was right According to the witness for the company ther... View the full answer