Question

Mr. and Mrs. Ferlito attended a Halloween party with Mrs. Ferlito dressed as Mary and Mr. Ferlito

manufactured by Johnson & Johnson products to a suit of long underwear. The lamb costume covered
Halloween paint. At the party, Mr. Ferlito attempted to light his cigarette by using a butane lighter.
Mr. Ferlito from his head to his ankles, except for his face and hands, which were blackened with
The flames passed close to his left arm and the cotton batting on his sleeve ignited. Mr. and Mrs. Ferlito
one-third of Mr. Ferlito's body. The Ferlitos claimed that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn purchasers
sued Johnson & Johnson products for injuries they suffered from burns that covered approximately
of this cotton batting that it was flammable. The jury returned a verdict of $555,000 for Mr. Ferlito and
will Johnson & Johnson argue? What will Mr. and Mrs. Ferlito argue? How do you think the court
$70,000 for Mrs. Ferlito. Johnson & Johnson moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. What
should rule?

Answer 1

The court is weighing a product liability claim where Mr. and Mrs. Ferlito argue that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn them of the flammability of cotton batting. Johnson & Johnson would argue that they fulfilled their duty or that mr. Ferlito was negligent. the court's decision will rely on the adequacy of warnings and the responsibilities of both parties.

Step-by-step explanation:

In response to the question about the legal dispute between Mr. and Mrs. Ferlito and Johnson & Johnson, the court is faced with a product liability case. here, the Ferlitos sued Johnson & Johnson after Mr. Ferlito suffered severe burns when his costume, made with cotton batting manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, caught on fire. the Ferlitos argue that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn purchasers about the flammability of the cotton batting. The jury ruled in favor of the Ferlitos, awarding significant damages.

Johnson & Johnson, in moving for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, likely argues that they fulfilled any duty to warn about the product's flammability or that Mr. Ferlito's negligence contributed to his injuries. Looking at the situation from a legal standpoint, the company would argue that the product was not defective and that proper warnings were provided, or that consumers should be aware of the general risks associated with cotton batting. Analogously, in the counter example provided about Susan babysitting, it is suggested that the responsible party should know the dangers and act to prevent harm. So, Johnson & Johnson might contend that Mr. Ferlito was responsible for keeping safe from open flames while in a flammable costume.

Finally, how the court should rule in this case may depend on the specific laws and evidence presented regarding the duty to warn, product liability, and contributory negligence. The court will assess whether the warning provided (if any) was adequate and compare the responsibilities of both parties in the incident.