Question

The brakes on a train owned by Rolling Stock Railway malfunction. The train rolls towards maintenance workers on the track. Everyone gets out of the way except Sid, who wants to show off. The train hits Sid, who sues Train Components Inc., the brake's manufacturer. Train Components can raise the defense of....

1) a component part manufacturer
2) Assumption of risk
3) Privity
4) Product Misuse

Answer 1

The correct option is 2). Train Components Inc., could usually invoke the assumption of risk and product misuse defenses in a lawsuit by an injured party who intentionally remained in a dangerous situation. Component part manufacturer and privity are less applicable defenses in this scenario.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the scenario where Sid, the maintenance worker, sues Train Components Inc., the brake's manufacturer, after being hit by a malfunctioning train, there are a few defenses that Train Components Inc. could potentially raise. The most relevant defense in this situation would likely be Assumption of risk. This defense implies that Sid was aware of the risk associated with standing on the tracks in the path of a train with known brake issues and chose to remain there to show off, thus voluntarily accepting the risk of harm. Product Misuse might also be considered if Sid's actions could be viewed as improperly interacting with the train or brakes, but this would depend on the specifics of the incident. The defense of component part manufacturer could be relevant if Train Components was merely the manufacturer of a component and not responsible for the integration into the train or if that integration caused the malfunction when done improperly by another party. Lastly, Privity may not be a strong defense in product liability cases where a direct contractual relationship isn't required for liability.