Question

Resale, Inc. is a dealer in used and rebuilt equipment. Resale obtained a used crane originally manufactured by the Crane Co. The crane was designed for heavy lifting. Resale installed a new engine and a new lifting cable on the crane. The cable was manufactured by Cable Co. Resale then sold the crane "as is" to Contractor, in a contract of sale which disclaimed all express and implied warranties. Contractor then used the crane in construction work. While using the crane on the job six months later, an accident occurred. Employee, who was operating the crane at the time, was severely injured, and the construction job was delayed for a week while a replacement crane and operator were obtained. This accident occurred when the lifting cable proved to be defective and snapped, causing the steel beam that was being lifted to fall on the crane and injure Employee. Suppose Contractor attached a wrecking ball to the crane and used it to knock down an old building on the construction site by swinging the wrecking ball from side to side. If the accident occurred when the crane tipped over while being used in this fashion, and Employee brings a strict products liability claim against Crane Co. alleging a design defect, who will prevail? A. Crane Co. would prevail if it shows that the Crane was not designed to be used in this fashion. B. Crane Co. would prevail if it shows that such use was an unforeseeable misuse of the crane. C. Employee would prevail because the Crane tipped over. D. Employee would prevail if a design change would have prevented the accident.

Answer 1

Crane Co. would prevail if it shows that the Crane was not designed to be used in this fashion (Option A).

Step-by-step explanation:

In a strict product liability claim, the manufacturer can be held liable if the product is defective. However, a manufacturing defect or a design defect requires that the product be used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

In this case, using the crane to swing a wrecking ball from side to side may be considered an unforeseeable misuse of the crane.

Therefore, if Crane Co. can demonstrate that the crane was not designed to be used in this fashion and that the accident occurred due to an unforeseeable misuse.

It is likely that they would prevail in the strict product liability claim brought by the employee.

Hence, the correct answer is Option A. Crane Co. would prevail if it shows that the Crane was not designed to be used in this fashion.